Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, Satya Narayan Chakraborty, JJ.
Samarendra Nath Paul & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Collector, Hooghly & Addl. District Magistrate & Ors. - Respondents
F. M. A. No. 861 of 1989
Decided On : July 3, 1996
LAND ACQUISITION - Requisition and Acquisition Act - Public Purpose - Housing Project - Whether a housing project can be considered a public purpose under the Act - Whether the requisitioning authority must strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act - Whether the court can interfere with the opinion of the requisitioning authority regarding the existence of a public purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, owners of two plots of land, challenged an order of requisition issued by the Collector under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (the Act) for the implementation of a housing project by the West Bengal Housing Board. The appellants contended that the requisition was not valid as the service of notice was not effected in accordance with the Act and Rules, and that the purpose of the requisition, namely, the construction of residential houses for the weaker section of the community, did not constitute a public purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requisitioning authority must strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act and Rules, and that the service of notice in the instant case was not in accordance with the prescribed manner. The court further held that a housing project for the weaker section of the community does not constitute a public purpose under the Act, as it is not a service essential to the life of the community. The court also held that the opinion of the requisitioning authority regarding the existence of a public purpose is not beyond the power of judicial review, and that the court can interfere with such opinion if it is not based on proper application of mind or if the requirements of law have not been complied with.
Issues: 1. Whether the requisitioning authority strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of the Act and Rules regarding the service of notice? 2. Whether the purpose of the requisition, namely, the construction of residential houses for the weaker section of the community, constituted a public purpose under the Act? 3. Whether the opinion of the requisitioning authority regarding the existence of a public purpose is beyond the power of judicial review?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the requisitioning authority must strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act and Rules regarding the service of notice, and that the service of notice in the instant case was not in accordance with the prescribed manner. The court relied on the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, which mandates that an order of requisition shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land, and Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948, which prescribes the manner of service. The court held that the service of notice by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land, as was done in the instant case, was not in accordance with the prescribed manner, as Rule 3(d) requires that a copy of the order be fixed in some conspicuous part of the office of the Collector as well. 2. The court held that a housing project for the weaker section of the community does not constitute a public purpose under the Act, as it is not a service essential to the life of the community. The court relied on the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, which specifies various public purposes for which requisition can be made, including maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and creating better living conditions in rural and urban areas. The court held that a housing project for the weaker section of the community falls under the latter category, and that it is not a service essential to the life of the community. 3. The court held that the opinion of the requisitioning authority regarding the existence of a public purpose is not beyond the power of judicial review, and that the court can interfere with such opinion if it is not based on proper application of mind or if the requirements of law have not been complied with. The court relied on the principles of natural justice and the requirement that administrative authorities must act in accordance with law. The court held that the requisitioning authority must have proper materials before it to form an opinion regarding the existence of a public purpose, and that the court can interfere with such opinion if it is not based on such materials.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of requisition, and directed the restoration of possession of the properties to the appellants. However, the court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the Housing Board from purchasing the land in question from the appellants by way of negotiations, or the State from initiating any other acquisition proceeding in accordance with law.
Sinha, J. : This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13.7.88 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants questioning an order of requisition in respect of plot Nos. 1787 and 1788 in Mouza Monoharpur, in terms of a notice dated 9.5.84.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. The aforementioned plots were purchased by the writ petitioners in terms of a registered deed of conveyance dated 7th July, 1981 from Sri Haradhan Ballav and Others and their names were mutated and recorded in the relevant records. According to the appellants, they purchased the said plots for the purpose of erecting and/or constructing a factory. By reason of an order dated 21.12.81, the Collector, Hooghly, in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) requisitioned the said property allegedly for implementation of a housing project at Monoharpur by the West Bengal Housing Board. No order was served upon the appellants although the delivery of possession thereof was served upon the appellants although the delivery of possession thereof was sought to be taken on 7th January, 1982. A representation was made by the appellants on 3.2.82. However, as no relief was granted to them, they moved a writ application before this Court which was marked as C. R. No. 5572 (W) of 1982 on or about 26th April, 1982. In the said proceedings, affidavits-in-opposition were filed by the concerned respondents stating that the lands were requisitioned for the purpose of Dankuni Housing Project. By reason of an order dated 30.1.84, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing that the impugned notices were not to be given effect to, but the respondent No. 5 and the State respondent would be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh upon serving fresh notice on the proper persons. The appellants have contended that although they had been in actual physical possession of the land in question, delivery of possession of the said plots was taken by the respondents on or about 14.5.84. A purported notice dated 9.5.84 bearing memo No. 1 95 (3) L. A. issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly, was served for the first time upon the writ petitioner No. 2, who is said to be the registered owner of a portion of the plot of land on 27.5.84, but copies of the said notice had not been served on the appellant Nos, 1, 3 and 4. The instant writ petition was, therefore, filed on 4th June, 1984. In the said proceedings also, affidavits-in-opposition were filed.
4. The learned trial Judge in his impugned judgment noticed that during the pendency of the writ application, an application was filed by the appellants stating that the project of the Housing Board for which the requisition was made had been completed and the appellants lands are surplus land and, therefore, order should be passed derequisitioning the same. However, the said allegation was denied. According to the respondents, the purpose for which the requisition was made was to make available to the economically back ward sections of the community to provide accommodation, which purpose is covered under the said Act. The learned trial Judge having held that the service of notice was effected by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land as also by sending the same under certificate of posting. The learned trial Judge further held that as the order of requisition was made for the purpose of construction of residential houses for the weaker section of the community the same would amount to a public purpose, namely, supplies and services essential to the life of the community. According to the learned trial Judge a housing project meant for the persons belonging to the weaker section of the community is a service essential
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
