Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 316
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay And Mr. Justice Arunabha Basu
PALLAV KUMAR BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
F. M. 694 Of 2000
Decided On : 04/27/2007
A.N.BANERJI, BIDYUT KIRAN MUKHERJI, FAZLUL HAQUE, P.S.BASU, PRADIP TARAFDAR, Pratap Chatterjee, SAKTINATH MUKHERJI, SWAPAN KUMAR PAL, TAPAS SIL, Z.REHMAN
The order of requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, cannot be continued for an indefinite/unlimited period, and the Court has the authority to issue directions for expediting the acquisition proceedings or to release the property in the event it is not acquired within the specified time.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - ACQUISITION - REQUISITION - LIMITATION PERIOD - The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) does not provide for an indefinite period of requisition. The Court has the authority to issue directions to expedite the acquisition process or release the property if it is not acquired within a specified time.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the notice issued under Section 5 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and the notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on October 14, 1996, under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act for the acquisition of their property. The appellants had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act, which was disposed of by the High Court in 1993, directing the concerned Land Acquisition Collector to acquire the property within six months or release it from requisition and restore possession to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Land Acquisition Collector did not acquire the property within the time specified by the High Court in the earlier order and did not release the property from requisition. The Court further held that the order of requisition cannot be continued for an indefinite/unlimited period and the Court has the authority to issue directions for expediting the acquisition proceedings or to release the property in the event it is not acquired within the specified time.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition issued under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, can remain operative and valid till the property is acquired and a notice under Section 4(2) of the said Act is published in the official gazette. 2. Whether the Court has the authority to issue directions for expediting the acquisition proceedings or to release the property in the event it is not acquired within the specified time.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of requisition issued under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, does not remain operative and valid till the property is acquired and a notice under Section 4(2) of the said Act is published in the official gazette. 2. The Court has the authority to issue directions for expediting the acquisition proceedings or to release the property in the event it is not acquired within the specified time.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the notice served upon the appellants under Section 5(1) of the Act II of 1948 and the notification published under Section 4 of the said Act II of 1948 on October 14, 1996, in the official gazette. The Court also set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on March 11, 1998, and directed the respondent authorities to release the property in question and hand over possession of the same to the appellants within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioners. The said writ petitioners moved the writ petition being w. P. No. 4361 (W) of 1997 challenging the notice issued under Section 5 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 as well as the notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th October, 1996 under sub-section 1 (a) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1948 for acquisition of Premises No. 11, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata.
( 2 ) FROM the records it appears that another writ petition was moved earlier by the said writ petitioners challenging the notification issued under section 3 (1) of the said Act of 1948 which was numbered as C. R. No. 15177 (W) of 1979. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the order dated 10th September, 1993 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in the following manner: -
" (1) Since the order of requisition has been continuing from the year 1979, the concerned Land Acquisition Collector is directed to acquire the property in question, if the authority so desires, within six months from the date of communication of this order. (2) If the concerned authority does not acquire the property in question within the time specified hereinabove, the Land Acquisition collector is directed to release the property in question from requisition and restore possession of the same to the writ petitioner within six months thereafter. "
( 3 ) IN the subsequent writ petition wherefrom the present appeal arises, it has been alleged that notwithstanding the service of notice communicating the earlier order dated 10th September, 1993 passed in the earlier writ petition being C. R. No. 15177 (W) of 1979, the concerned authority neither acquired the property in question within the time specified by the learned Single Judge in the said order dated September 10,1993 nor the concerned authority released the said property. The writ petitioners, therefore, urged before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition that the aforesaid order dated 10th September, 1993 passed by the learned Single judge in the earlier writ petition being not complied with, the concerned land Acquisition Collector is estopped from proceeding any further with the acquisition of the property in question and the action taken in this regard by the said Land Acquisition Collector is wrongful and illegal since the prescribed time of acquisition mentioned in the earlier order of this court dated 10th September, 1993 has admittedly been expired. The said writ petition ultimately came up for hearing before another learned Single judge on 11th March, 1998 when the said learned Single Judge upon hearing the rival contentions of the respective parties dismissed the writ petition.
( 4 ) INSTANT appeal thereafter, has been preferred at the instance of the said writ petitioners challenging the said order of the learned Single judge passed on 11th March, 1998.
( 5 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel of the appellants submits that West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 was a temporary Act and after successive extensions, the Act was allowed to lapse in March, 1997. The Act was a special one for the requisition and speedy acquisition of land for certain purposes. One of the salient feature of the Act was the absence of any provision therein enabling the affected owner to object to the proposed requisition or acquisition. Under the said act, the authority could requisition any land by simply issuing an order under Section 3 (1) and then acquire the requisitioned land by publication of a Notification under Section 4 (1a) of the said Act. Referring to Article 300a of the Constitution of India, Mr. Mukherji submits that an Expropriating statute is required to be strictly construed. In other words, a deprivation can. be brought about only in strict compliance with law. The learned counsel of the appellants cited the following decisions in
