An acquisition of property under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is valid if it is for a public purpose and is not mala fide.

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.

Premises No. 1/1-A, 1/1-B and 1/1-C, Achariya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta was owned by one Sailesh Kumar Bose and Satyesh Kumar Bose. It was under occupation of Hindi High School who was enjoying possession by virtue of a Dead of Lease for twenty-one years commencing from January 1, 1959. The lease expired on December 31, 1980. On February 16, 1978 a notice of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894) was issued for acquiring the said premises for expansion of Vidyamandir Society which was inducted by Hindi High School without the knowledge and consent of the owners. However, Vidyamandir subsequently informed that they did not intend to acquire the said premises and as such the acquisition proceeding was abandoned. Subsequent thereto, a notice of requisition dated December 21, 1979 was issued under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1948) inter alia requiring the said premises for housing Birla College of Science and Education which was subsequently renamed as Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose College said to have been set up by Vidyamandir Society. The State Legislature passed a bill in 1977 taking over management of Birla College of Science and Education which, however, did not get the presidential assent.

2. The order of requisition was challenged by the owners in Matter No. 418 of 1980. By judgment and order dated June 5, 1980 the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the requisition proceeding. The owners issued a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of possession. At this juncture, the State issued a further notice of requisition under the said Act of 1948 dated August 26, 1991. The owners again challenged the second order of requisition dated August 26, 1991 by filing a writ petition being Matter No. 1760 of 1981. During the pendency of the said writ petition the State issued a notice under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 dated June 24, 1988 intending to acquire the property in question for the benefit of the said college.

3. In this backdrop the appellants, above named, filed a writ petition being Matter No. 4644 of 1988 challenging the notice issued under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 inter alia claiming that they had substantial interest in the property and as such they were competent to challenge this said notice.

4. Disclosing their interest the appellant contended in the writ petition that they entered into an agreement for sale with the owners of the premises in question. At the time of filing of the writ petition they could acquire 1/20th share in the property in question. The balance 19/20th share was, however, acquired by the appellants during the pendency of the instant appeal as we are told by Mr. Santimay Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal. The writ petition was initially moved before the learned Single Judge on September 9, 1988 when interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge staying the acquisition proceeding initially for three weeks. Matter appeared from time to time, however could not be taken up until November 14,1988 when the learned Single Judge directed the interim order, if any, to continue till the disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the State could not proceed any further in the matter in view of the pendency of the said writ proceedings. The matter came up for hearing before the learned single Judge on November 21, 2000 when His Lordship after hearing the matter dismissed the writ petition holding the same as meritless.

5. Pertinent to note, during the pendency of the said writ proceeding the appeal preferred against the order passed in Matter No. 1766 of 1981 came up for hearing before the Division Bench on April 24, 1993. The Division Bench observed that once the College was being taken over by the Government the public purpose was prese