A notice of requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 must specify the portion of land to be requisitioned. A description of the requisitioned area as "middle" is insufficient and vague.

The judgment of the Court was as follows :––

This Rule is directed against an order of requisition being No. 2 dated August 6, 1973 in Requisition Case No. 1/77/72-73. By this order the Collector, Hooghly requisitioned .039 acres of land out of Plot No. 40 of Muja Kulihonda, P. S. Chinsura. In the column for description of the specific portion of land thereby requisitioned it is mentioned "middle", obviously meaning that the middle portion of the plot was requisitioned. There is no dispute that the plot No. 40 comprises an area of .258 acres of land and out of this land a specific portion thereof measuring .058 acres was purchased by the petitioner by a registered Kobala dated October 3, 1963, for the alleged purpose of building her residence thereon. It was stated in the petition that a plan for the purpose had already been submitted and she had started taking steps for construction of the house in accordance with the Section 319 of the Bengal Municipal Act (Bengal Act XV of 1932) after lapse of statutory period of one month as the Municipality neither granted nor refused permission to execute the work. In this state of affairs the petitioner was served with the above requisition order on August 8, 1973. The petitioner took various grounds challenging the requisition by filing an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution and a Rule was issued thereon on August 17, 1973 with an interim order directing maintenance of status quo as on that date, Mr. Palit, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner slates that the petitioner has been in possession of the land throughout and no further steps have been taken pursuant to the said requisition. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that, according to Government's Affidavit-in-opposition, possession of the plot had already been taken. It, however, appears that the Court by an order dated 17.2.66 directed that the said Affidavit-in-opposition will not be taken into consideration as it appears that the said Affidavit was filed when there was no memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents. Be that as it may, as we shall consider the order of requisition on merits as the question of possession would be immaterial in considering the legal validity of the said order of requisition.

2. Mr. Palit submitted that the notice was vague and unworkable inasmuch as it has not been indicated in the notice as to which portion of the plot was sought to be requisitioned. As we have seen the plot comprised an area of more or less 16 cottahs out of which a little above 3 cottahs of land have been acquired by purchase by the petitioner. The notice of requisition, it is pointed out suffers from vagueness as it does not indicate the specific portion which was sought to be brought under requisition and the description of the requisitioned land as "middle" without more does not improve the position. Accordingly, the notice should be declared invalid.

3. The requisition was made under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition), Act 1948. In (1).P. N. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, 70 CWN 503, D. Basu, J. struck down a notice of requisition under the same Act on the ground that the requisition order did not specify the portion of the C.S. Plot which was sought to be requisitioned. It was observed in that case that the order under Sec. 3 of the Act must give sufficient particulars so as to identify the land to which the order relates and since the impugned order, did not do so it was invalid, the description of the requisitioned area as portion was considered as insufficient and vague.

4. In the case before us similar consideration that of the middle of the plot would apply also. The notice simply mentions measuring an area of about 2½ cottahs (out of a 16 cottah plot) is to be requisitioned without any further specification and on the basis of this description it is not possible to determine which specific portion of the plot was requi