High Court of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.
Samarendra Nath Paul & Ors.
Vs.
West Bengal Housing Board
W.P. No. 467 of 1998
Decided on : 14th June, 2000
LAND ACQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1996 - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997 - LAND ACQUISITION (WEST BENGAL AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997 - Acquisition of land under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of Act II of 1948 - Lapse of acquisition after one year from the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1996 - Validity of notice issued under sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act of 1997.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' land was requisitioned and acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). The petitioners challenged the requisition and acquisition in a writ petition, which was dismissed. The petitioners filed an appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal, the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Amendment Act of 1996) came into force. The Amendment Act of 1996 added a new section 7A to Act II of 1948, which provided that a notice of acquisition issued under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of Act II of 1948 would lapse if an award was not made within a certain period of time. The petitioners argued that the acquisition of their land had lapsed because an award was not made within the time period specified in section 7A. The State/respondents argued that the acquisition of the petitioners' land was valid because a notice had been issued under sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 (Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997), which provided that a notice of acquisition issued under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of Act II of 1948 would be deemed to have been complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition of the petitioners' land was valid because the notice issued under sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 was valid. The court found that the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 were intended to validate and keep alive the acquisition of land that might have lapsed under section 7A of Act II of 1948. The court also found that the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 were not unconstitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of the petitioners' land had lapsed because an award was not made within the time period specified in section 7A of Act II of 1948. 2. Whether the notice issued under sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the acquisition of the petitioners' land had not lapsed because the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 were intended to validate and keep alive the acquisition of land that might have lapsed under section 7A of Act II of 1948. 2. The court found that the provisions of sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1997 were not unconstitutional.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition.
P.K. Samanta, J.
The intricate questions involved in this writ petition are whether an acquisition made under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act II of 1948) stood lapsed after a period of one year from the date of commencement of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1996) and whether the notice issued by the State/respondents under sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act of 1997 for giving effect to such an acquisition was valid in law.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the problem in this case may be shortly stated as under:
A total land measuring more or less 34 cottahs (.57 decimals) comprised in two plots being plot Nos. 1787 and 1788 under Mouza Monoharpur were belonging to the writ petitioners.
3. The Collector of Hooghy issued notice and/or an order for requisition of the above lands under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 on May, 1984. According to State/respondents the possession of the disputed lands were taken over by the Collector on the said date. The writ petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the said notice and/or the order dated 9th May, 1984 made under section 3(1) of the Act II of 1948 on the ground of non-service of notice as well as on the ground of absence of public purpose within the meaning of section 3 of Act II of 1948. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on contest by a judgment and order dated 13th July, 1988 passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal being F.M.A. No. 861 of 1989 before the Division Bench of this court. In the said appeal the writ petitioners moved a stay application on the allegation that the respondent/West Bengal Housing Board had started making some construction on the disputed lands. The said stay application was disposed of by an order dated 28th June, 1991 with the observation that the construction work as started in the plots in question such as digging of earth and measurement thereto may be effected but in no case construction work above plinth level shall be made without obtaining further orders from this court. It may be stated that in view of dismissal of the writ petition challenging the order and/or notice of requisition under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 and the aforesaid order of stay by the Division Bench on the application for stay filed by the writ petitioners in the said appeal, it cannot be said that the State authorities were precluded from making of an order for acquisition in exercise of power under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of the Act II of 1948 of the suit lands so requisitioned. In fact, the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal issued a notice dated 6th July, 1991 for acquisition of the disputed lands in exercise of power under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of Act II of 1948 during the pendency of the above appeal in this court. In these state of affairs the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1994 came into force with effect from 1st April, 1994. By virtue of such amendment the life of the Act II of 1948 was extended until the 31st day of March, 1997 and section 3 of the said Amendment Act, 1994 provided as under :-
"Section 3. Section 3 of the principal Act (hereinafter referred to as the said section) shall be omitted with effect from the 1st day of April, 1994:
Provided that such omission shall not –
(a) affect the previous operation of the said section so omitted or anything duly done or suffered thereunder, or
(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liberty acquired, accrued or incurred under the said section so omitted, or
(c) affect any inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or remedy, in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid, and any such inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or reme
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.