2001 Supreme(Cal) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ALTAMAS KABIR & RANJAN KUMAR MAJUMDAR, JJ.
Sterling Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. & other
Versus
State of West Bengal & other
A.P.O. No. 691 of 1994 Matter No. 340 of 1993
Decided on : 2.1.2001

Orders of requisition passed under a temporary statute, which lapsed by efflux of time, do not survive the expiry of the statute unless there is a saving provision to the contrary.

Headnote:

The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) was a temporary statute that lapsed on March 31, 1997. The Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 (Amendment Act of 1997) was enacted after the expiry of Act II of 1948. The Amendment Act of 1997 sought to validate orders of requisition passed under Act II of 1948 and to provide for the acquisition of such lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act I of 1894).

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were served with orders of requisition under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 and possession of their lands was taken over by the State Government. The appellants challenged the orders of requisition in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants filed appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. While the appeals were pending, the Amendment Act of 1997 was enacted. The appellants were granted leave to challenge the vires of the Amendment Act of 1997.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the orders of requisition passed under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 did not survive the lapse of the said Act. The Court also held that the Amendment Act of 1997 was prospective and not retrospective in operation. Therefore, sub-section (3A) incorporated in section 9 of Act I of 1894 by the Amendment Act of 1997 was held to be of no effect. The Court further held that the amended provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 9 of Act I of 1894 were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the orders of requisition passed under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 survived the lapse of the said Act? 2. Whether the Amendment Act of 1997 was retrospective or prospective in operation? 3. Whether the amended provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 9 of Act I of 1894 were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the orders of requisition passed under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 did not survive the lapse of the said Act because: a. Act II of 1948 was a temporary statute which lapsed by efflux of time on March 31, 1997, and there was no saving provision therein. b. The saving provision incorporated in section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Amendment Act of 1994) was made to enable the State Government to continue to exercise its powers under section 4(1) and section 4(1a) and other sections of Act II of 1948 which continued to be operative after omission of section 3 of the principal Act. c. The omission of section 3 and the extension of the life of Act II of 1948 for a further period of three years indicate that an opportunity was being given by the legislature to the State Government to complete the process of acquisition begun by issuing orders under section 3 of the said Act. 2. The Court held that the Amendment Act of 1997 was prospective and not retrospective in operation because: a. The legislature did not incorporate an intention to give retrospective effect to the Amendment Act of 1997 in the Act itself. b. The State Government was given the power to appoint a date for the Amendment Act of 1997 to come into force, which necessarily meant that the Act was to be given prospective effect. 3. The Court held that the amended provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 9 of Act I of 1894 were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because: a. The amended provisions created a class of persons who had been served with orders of requisition under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 and possession of whose lands had been taken over by the State Government. b. The former group of persons were deprived of the benefit of section 17(3A) of Act I of 1894, despite being deprived of the right to file an objection against the proposed acquisition under section 5A of the said Act.

Final Decision: The appeals, except the one filed by the West Bengal Housing Board, were allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants therein was set aside and the orders of requisition impugned in the writ petitions were also set aside on the ground that they had lapsed along with Act II of 1948 after March 31, 1997. The appeal filed by the West Bengal Housing Board was dismissed. The respondents concerned were directed to return possession of the requisitioned lands to the appellants concerned within two months from the date of the order and to pay compensation for continuing in possession of the lands even after the lapse of Act II of 1948.