Back
High Court of Calcutta
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
C.R. No. 1409 (W) of 1983
Decided On : Jan 24, 1989
LAND REQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2) - MURSHIDABAD ESTATE (TRUST) ACT, 1963 - SECTIONS 3, 6, 11 - REQUISITION OF LAWN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS'/MINISTERS' QUARTERS - VALIDITY - PURPOSE BEYOND SCOPE OF ACT - NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE ON OCCUPIER - VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(2) - WRIT PETITION - MANDAMUS ISSUED TO QUASH REQUISITION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a descendant of the Nawab of Murshidabad, challenged an order requisitioning the lawn of premises No. 85, Park Street, Calcutta, under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, for constructing government officers'/ministers' quarters. The petitioner claimed that the lawn was used for religious worship and that he was in occupation of the premises. The State Government contended that the lawn was not physically occupied by anyone and that notice was served on the Durwan of the Official Trustee, who was the owner of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of requisition was passed without jurisdiction as the purpose for which the lawn was sought to be requisitioned fell beyond the purposes mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. The court also held that the non-service of notice upon the petitioner, who was an occupier of the premises, violated the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the purpose of requisitioning the lawn for the construction of government officers'/ministers' quarters was within the scope of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948? 2. Whether the non-service of notice upon the petitioner, who was an occupier of the premises, violated the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the purpose of requisitioning the lawn for the construction of government officers'/ministers' quarters was beyond the scope of the Act as it did not fall within the purposes mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. The court observed that the purpose of the Act was for speedy requisition and/or acquisition of land for some urgent purpose specifically mentioned in the Act, and that the construction of quarters for officers and ministers could not be said to be a purpose for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. 2. The court held that the non-service of notice upon the petitioner, who was an occupier of the premises, violated the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. The court observed that under the scheme of the Act, notice is given before requisition and that such an order of requisition is not published in the gazette. Therefore, unless a notice under Section 3(1) is served, the order of requisition could not be made effective and valid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of requisition and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, revoke, cancel and/or withdraw the said order of requisition and not to give any further effect to the said order.
1. THIS writ application is at the instance of the petitioner who is one of the male descendants of His Highness Fureeddon Jah Syed Mansoor Ali Khan, the Nawab of Murshidabad against an order or requisition by which the front portion of premises No. 85, Park Street, (Culcutta, which is the lawn was requisitioned under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and acquisition) Act 1948.
2. IT is not necessary to set out all the facts pleaded in the writ application. For the purpose of this writ application, the relevant facts are that Murshidabad Estate (Trust) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Trust Act) was passed by the State Legislature whereby all properties of Murshidabad Estate vested in the Trustee (Official Trustee of Government of West Bengal) and the said Trustee was under the obligation to hold properties in trust for the benefit of the sons and daughters of the Late Nawab Bahadur i. e. Syed Wasif Ali Meerza. In accordance with the provisions of the said Trust Act, premises No. 85, Park Street which forms part of the Murshidabad Estate was to be used and occupied solely by the successor of Nawab of Murshidabad. It may be mentioned that at present the title of Nawab had not been conferred on anybody. The writ petitioner is one of the claimants of such title. The petitioner along with some other members of the family of late Nawab Bahadur are residing and are in occupation of premises no. 85, Park Street, Calcutta. It appears that against the move to set up a hotel at the said premises, the said writ application was filed by the petitioner for establishing his right to the title of Nawab and also to get the annuity payable to the Nawab whereupon Suhas Chandra Sen, J. on 30th August 1985 passed the following order :
"There will be an order of status quo till the disposal of the application, so far as the possession of the premises no. 85, Park Street, Calcutta and tenancies of that premises are concerned. It is recorded that Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the State, is disputing the allegation of existence of tenancy and the right of the petitioner in respect of the premises no. 85, Park Street. There will also be an order restraining the petitioner from inducting any tenant or any other occupant in the said premises no. 8. 5, Park Street, Calcutta."
Thereafter, the State Government requisitioned the property on 9/11/83 under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and acquisition) Act 1948 for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for the purposes connected therewith and incidental there to viz. for construction of Government officers/ministers. The notice as provided under Section 3 (2) of the said Act was not served upon the petitioner but was served upon the Durwan of the official Trustee of Government of West Bengal posted on the said premises on 12th November 1983 at about 12.30p.m. The petitioner challenged this order of requisition on the ground that no notice of requisition was served upon the petitioner either as owner or occupier of the premises and secondly, the said lawn which is the subject matter of the requisition is being used by the petitioner and the family members of the Nawab of Murshidabad and the members of the Shia Community for the purpose of religious worship which is exempted under the provisions of the said act and thirdly, the purpose for which the lawn was requisitioned, was beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 and lastly, the said property which was directed to be used for a particular purpose under the said Trust Act, could not be requisitioned by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 (1) of the said Act.
3. THE case of the Respondents is that the said lawn is not in occupation of any particular person and the property is under the control and management of the Official Trustee and as such it was not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
