Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ruma Pal, J.
Sandeep Kumar Bhakat & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
C.O. No. 7464 (W) of 1992
Decided On : August 5, 1992
LAND ACQUISITION - Requisition and acquisition of land - West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (WB Act 2 of 1948) - Ss. 3, 3(1), 3(2) - Purpose of requisition and acquisition - Scope of - Satisfaction of the State Government - Necessity for - Factors to be considered - Service of order of requisition - Mode of service - Sufficiency of service - Validity of requisition and acquisition - Challenge to.
Fact of the Case:
Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) proposed to set up a self-contained Township adjacent to Prantik Railway Station near Bolpore Santiniketan covering an area of about 54 acres. The SSDA conducted a demand survey to find out a suitable land for the project and an area of 54 acres of land was found adjacent to Prantik Railway Station. On 6th August 1991 a proposal for requisition and acquisition of 56.06 acres of land in Mouza Taltore had been submitted by the SSDA with the approval of Development of Planning (Town and Country Planning) Department, Government of West Bengal to the Land Acquisition Collector, Birbhum, for development of a modern township. The requisition proceedings were started on 10.12.91. The petitioners challenged the requisition and acquisition of the plot which the respondents have sought to effect under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Ace, 1948 (referred to as the Act).
Finding of the Court:
1. The satisfaction of the State Government under s. 3(1) of the Act pertains to both the requisition of land as well as to the purposes mentioned in s. 3(1). It is implicit in s.3(1) that the State Government must be of the view that the particular purpose was a necessary one. 2. Additionally the State Government must also be satisfied that requisition under s. 3 was necessary to effect such purpose. 3. The discretion in the State Government to take or not to take action under the 1948 Act is not an unfettered one. 4. The provisions of the Act should be resorted to only in cases where there was such an urgency which required a speedy acquisition. 5. There was neither need for the purpose sought to be achieved nor and in any event any emergent situation warranting requisition under the 1948 Act. 6. The order of requisition need not be served on the owners and occupiers at all. 7. The process server could not be hoard to say that he had served all the plot-holders by hanging up one order of requisition at an unspecified place in the 54 acres of land covering 84 plots.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government's satisfaction under s. 3(1) of the Act pertains only to the requisition of land or also to the purposes mentioned in s. 3(1)? 2. Whether the State Government must also be satisfied that requisition under s. 3 was necessary to effect such purpose? 3. Whether the discretion in the State Government to take or not to take action under the 1948 Act is an unfettered one? 4. Whether the provisions of the Act should be resorted to only in cases where there was such an urgency which required a speedy acquisition? 5. Whether there was need for the purpose sought to be achieved or any emergent situation warranting requisition under the 1948 Act? 6. Whether the order of requisition need not be served on the owners and occupiers at all? 7. Whether the process server could be hoard to say that he had served all the plot-holders by hanging up one order of requisition at an unspecified place in the 54 acres of land covering 84 plots?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word ‘necessary’ in s. 3(1) of the Act pertains both to the requisition of land as well as to the purposes mentioned in s. 3(1). It is implicit in s.3(1) that the State Government must be of the view that the particular purpose was a necessary one. 2. Additionally the State Government must also be satisfied that requisition under s. 3 was necessary to effect such purpose. 3. The discretion in the State Government to take or not to take action under the 1948 Act is not an unfettered one. 4. The provisions of the Act should be resorted to only in cases where there was such an urgency which required a speedy acquisition. 5. There was neither need for the purpose sought to be achieved nor and in any event any emergent situation warranting requisition under the 1948 Act. 6. The order of requisition need not be served on the owners and occupiers at all. 7. The process server could not be hoard to say that he had served all the plot-holders by hanging up one order of requisition at an unspecified place in the 54 acres of land covering 84 plots.
Final Decision: The writ application was allowed. The impugned order and proceedings for requisition of the plot were quashed.
The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot Nos. 1496 R.S. Khatian No. 172, Hal Khatian No. 117 Mouza Taltore, J.L. No. 69 Bolpore, District Birbhum (referred to as the plot). The petitioners father Gopalji Prasad Bhakat had purchased the plot by Registered Deed of Conveyance on 28.10.88. Gopalji has since died. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are his children and the petitioner No.4. his widow. The petitioners challenge the requisition and acquisition of the plot which the respondents have sought to effect under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Ace, 1948 (referred to as the Act).
2. The plot bas been sought to be re4uisitioned at, the instance of the Srinlketan Santiniketan Development Authority (SSDA) which was constituted under s. 11 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 on 14th December, 1989.
3. On 6th August 1991 a proposal for requisition and acquisition of 56.06 acres of land in Mouza Taltore had been submitted by the SSDA with the approval of Development of Planning (Town and Country Planning) Department, Government of West Bengal to the Land Acquisition Collector, Birbhum, for development of a modern township. The requisition proceedings were started on 10.12 91.
4. The SSDA has stated that the project had been taken up for creation of better living conditions in the area. The SSDA conducted a demand survey to find out a suitable land for the project. An area of 54 acres of land was found adjacent to Prantik Railway Station On 26th December, 1991 the decision to make a demand survey was approved.
5. Accordingly, the SSDA published an Advertisement on 19th January, 1992 in two newspapers in which it was stated that the SSDA was proposing to set up a self-contained Township adjacent to Prantik Railway Station near Bolpore Santiniketan covering an area of about 54 acres. The advertisement further stated that the Township would be equipped with all amenities and facilities including Drinking Water, Road, Drainage, Electricity. Markets, Playground, Park, Nursing Home etc. Persons interested in acquiring land for residential and other purposes were to indicate their requirements of area in the prescribed proforma to the Executive Officer, SSDA by 10.2.92. The Advertisements specified that this was no offer for allotment but only for ascertainment of requirement. The particulars required in the proforma included the applicant's name, address, annual income, occupation, proposed use of land and requirement of area in Kottahs. Leaflets were also distributed by SSDA asking persons to submit their requirements in respect of the proposed Township by 10th February, 1992.
6. On 7th February, 1992 the petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation to the SSDA. In that representation the petitioner No. 1 challenged the authority by which the SSDA sought to deprive the petitioner of the land for the purpose of building a Township. He said that -he was a Teacher and permanent resident of the locality and that he was born there and he had the right to reside there. It was also stated that his father had purchased the land in 1988 for building a residential house. It was also stated that the proposed Township was not for the benefit of the public. It was pointed out that the areas under the control of the SSDA where there were houses already did not have proper roads or drinking water or electricity or drainage. It was stated that the setting up of the “dazzling” Township was nothing else but an effort on the pert of SSDA to hide its incompetence to tackle real problems, It was also stated that far from benefiting the residents of the locality, the persons in the locality were being dispossessed for the purpose of building “rest houses” for “persons from Kerala”. It was further stated that the land which was obtained by “turning blood to water” could not be sold to another by the State or by any governmental Institution to wealthy persons at a higher price.
7. This representation was received
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
