Back
1964 Supreme(Cal) 80
High Court of Calcutta
Bachawat, A.K. Mukherji, JJ.
Chayahahi Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
Asst Secretary Land And Land Revenue Deft Requisition Branch State Of West Bengal – Respondent
Decided On : March 26, 1964
M.M. Sen, R.C. Deb, S.K. Bose, S.N. Ghorai
The factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 is justiciable, and the opinion of the Government in this behalf is not final.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL PREMISES REQUISITION AND CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947 - [SECTION 3(1), 3(4), 4(1), 6, 9, 11-14, 21(1)] - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - [ARTICLE 19(1)(F), 31(2)] - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - [SECTION 299(2), 299(5)] - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - [PART VI, SECTION 16] - REQUISITION OF PREMISES - PUBLIC PURPOSE - JUSTICIABILITY - MALAFIDE - FACTUAL EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPULSORY ACQUISITION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - COMPENSATION - PUBLIC INTEREST - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the owner of the land and building at No. 1/6, Prince Golam mohammad Road, Calcutta, challenged the requisitioning order passed by the State Government under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947) on the ground that it was not supported by any public purpose and was passed malafide and in collusion and conspiracy between the tenant and the other respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under Act V of 1947 is justiciable and that the impugned order was supported by a public purpose, namely, the provision of residential accommodation for employees of the State Government, which was necessary in the interest of public service. The Court also held that the charge of malafide was not proved and that there was no colourable exercise of the power conferred by section 3 (1) of Act V of 1947.
Issues: 1. Is the factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under Act V of 1947 justiciable? 2. If so, was the order of requisition supported by a public purpose? 3. Was the order passed malafide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under Act V of 1947 is justiciable, relying on the decision in Satyanarayan Nathani v. State of West Bengal (6) 61 C. W. N. 420. The Court interpreted section 3 (1) of the Act in the light of the constitutional guarantee embodied in article 31 (2) of the Constitution and held that the opinion of the Government as to the need for requisitioning the premises is final, but the factual existence of the public purpose is justiciable and the opinion of the Government in that behalf is not final. 2. The Court held that the impugned order was supported by a public purpose, namely, the provision of residential accommodation for employees of the State Government, which was necessary in the interest of public service. The Court found that the requisitioned premises were allotted to Sri A. S. Nag, the Deputy Secretary in the Labour Department of the Government of West Bengal, who had onerous duties to perform and required suitable accommodation in Calcutta. The Court also found that Sri Nag was unable to obtain a suitable accommodation on rent despite his continued efforts for months. 3. The Court held that the charge of malafide was not proved and that there was no colourable exercise of the power conferred by section 3 (1) of Act V of 1947. The Court found that the requisitioning was not made for the benefit of the tenant and that there was no collusion, conspiracy, or bad faith on the part of the Government.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the requisitioning order passed by the State Government.
1. THE appellant is the owner of the land and building at No. 1/6, Prince Golam mohammad Road, Calcutta. One D. C. Goswami was a tenant of the entire ground floor of the building. The appellant obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant, and started proceedings for execution of the decree. The connected Misc. Case was disposed of on July 23, 1960 in terms of a compromise by which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of October 1960. On October 31, the executing court rejected an application by the tenant for further time till November 3, and issued a writ for delivery of possession of the premises. Before this writ could be executed, the State Government passed an order on November 2, under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947) requisitioning the premises and directing the 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta to take possession of it. The order stated that "in the opinion of the State Government the premises. . . . . . . . . . . . are needed for a public purpose. " On November 3, the Collector took possession of the requisitioned premises from the tenant and under his orders one Shri A. S. Nag occupied the premises. On the same day the bailiff of the Alipore Court visited the premises, but was unable to execute the writ for delivery of possession.
2. THE appellant was unable to persuade the Government to cancel the requisitioning order. On April 27, 1961 she obtained a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not forbear from giving effect to the requisitioning order and all consequential orders and notices and why those orders and notices should not be quashed and set aside. On August 10, 1961 Sinha, J. discharged the Rule. He rejected the appellant's contention that (a) the impugned order was not supported by any public purpose and that (b) it was passed malafide and in collusion and conspiracy between the tenant and the other respondents. The appellant challenges this finding. The respondents support it and also contend that the factual existence of a public purpose is not justiciable, and the subjective satisfaction of the State Government in this behalf is final.
The questions which arise in this appeal are (1) Is the factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under Act V of 1947 justiciable? (2) If so, was the order of requisition supported by a public purpose? (3) Was the order passed malafide? west Bengal Act V of 1947 was passed on January 1, 1948. Originally it was to remain in force up to March 31, 1950, but section 1 (4) authorised the Provincial Government to direct by notification in the official gazette that it shall remain in force for a further period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate three years. Though no notification was issued by the Provincial government under section 1 (4) the act was not allowed to expire on 1.3.1930. The life of the Act was extended from time to time up to 31.3.1953 by Act 15 of 1950 passed on 30.3.1950, up to 31.3.1954 by Act 10 of 1953 passed on 28.3.1953. up to 31.3.1951 by Act 7 of 1954 passed on 29.3.1954, up to 31.3.1958 by Ordinance 2 of 1957 passed on 29.3.1957, up to 31.3.1960 by Act 9 of 1957 passed on 15.7.1957, up to 31.3.1963 by Act 2 of 1960 passed on 19.3.1960, up to 31.3.1964 by Act 9 of 1963 passed on 30.3.1963, and up to 31.3.1966 by Act 29 of 1963 passed on 15.10.1963.
3. SUBSTANTIAL amendments in the body of the principal Act were made by Act 14 of 1949 passed on 3.3.1949 and by the aforesaid Act 7 of 1954 and Act 29 of 1963. Bearing in mind the past history and the policy of the legislature, it is unlikely that the Act will be allowed to expire on 31. 3. 1966. It is reasonable to think that the Act will not be allowed to expire in the near future and a requisition made under the Act will continue for an indefinite duration. Section 3 (1) of the Act empowers the State Government to requisition any premis
