(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant Sushila Devi has challenged the propriety of the judgment of C. K. Banerji J. By the said judgment, the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on- the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE respondent no. 5, Mannulal Fomra, is the owner of premises nos. 83 and 84, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta, comprising both land and buildings. The appellant is a tenant of a portion of the said premises and one madanlal Fomra is a tenant of the remaining portion of the said premises. It is alleged that the appellant carries on her business under the name and style of "phumbhra Agencies Road Transport Company'" in the said two premises. The respondent no. 2, the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, served an order dated April 23, 1976 under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Requisitioning the whole of the said premises no. 83 and part of the premises no. 84, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta for the establishment of a sub-depot of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation. The measurement and description of the requisitioned land have been given in the Schedule to the impugned order. The Schedule is as follows : schedule description of the land land measuring more or less 3b-10k-8ch-5 Sq. ft. equivalent to 1. 2645 acres or 0. 5117 hectare comprising premises nos. 83 and 84 (portion), Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road in Ward no. 56 of the Calcutta Municipality in the city of Calcutta and bounded on the northby premises no. 84 (Por.) and 85, Acharya Jagadish Ch: Bose Road and 76, Durga Charan Doctor Road. Eastby premises no. 84 (remaining portion), 82, 81/2b, and 8c, Acharya Jagadish Ch. Bose Road. South by premises no. 84, 81/2b, and 8c, Acharya Jagadish Ch. Bose Road. Westby premises no. 68/1, 53/1 53b, C, D, A, Durga Charan Doctor Road.

The appellant being aggrieved by the said order of requisition moved this Court against the same and obtained a Rule Nisi out of which this appeal arises. At the hearing of the Rule, the appellant challenged the legality of the order of requisition on three grounds: (1) the impugned order was bad for its vagueness, (2) the Act did not authorize the requisition or acquisition of land for the purposes of any juristic person like the State Transport Corporation, and (3) it was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned. Judge overruled all the three contentions of the appellant and discharged the Rule. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE same contentions as made before the learned Judge have been repeated before us on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R. C. Deb, Darned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the order of requisition is vague and it should be quashed on that ground. Our attention has been drawn to the Schedule of the requisition order which has been set out earlier. Under that Schedule, the area of land that has been requisitioned is stated to be 3b-10k-8ch-5 Sq. ft. which is equivalent to 70 cottah 8 chataks 5 sq. ft. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the vacant land of the said two premises measures 80 cottah 2 chataks more or' less. It is contended that the impugned order not having specified by demarcation the area of 70 cottah 8 chataks 5 sq. ft. of land sought to be requisitioned out of the total vacant land of 80 cottah 2 chataks, it is vague and can not be given effect to. Even assuming that the premises comprise a total area of 80 cottah 2 chataks of vacant land, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the of the appellant that the area of land which has been requisitioned has not been clearly specified by demarcation in the impugned order, for the contention completely overlooks the fact that the Schedule of the impugned order contains the boundary of the land sought to be requisitioned. In the writ pet