The formation of a due opinion by the competent authority is essential for a valid requisition order under section 3(1A) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. A change in the method of execution of the requisition purpose does not render the requisition invalid if the purpose remains the same.

The petitioners, who are co-sharers and purchased some properties obtained the Rule against an order of requisition under section 3(1A) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), made in case No 84 (Act II) of 1972-73. The said order is at Annexure 'B'.

2. They have contended to have purchased the properties (hereinafter referred to as the said properties) from others who had lawful title to them. It has been further contended that the said properties were duly recorded in their names in the finally published record-or-rights as well as in Revisional Settlement operations. There is also no dispute that the said properties are situated on the eastern side of Mandaria Khat (hereinafter referred to as the said Khat) in the village of Mandaria and the water from the same is discharged to the river Damodar, which is to the south of the said properties.

3. The said properties were initially sought to be requisitioned under the provisions of the said Act in case No. 17 (Act II) of 1972-73 for the purpose of providing proper facilities for transport and communication viz., for silt clearance of Mandaria Khal. Against the said order, some of the petitioners obtained Civil Rule No. 543 (W) of 1973, contending that notice under section 3(1)(a) and 5 were not served on them and the plots sought to be so requisitioned, were not required for the purpose of silt clearance of the said Khal. The validity, bonafide and the purpose of the said proceedings was also challenged. It was also contended that the lands in question were not in the bed of the said Khal and the purpose in question was certainly not for widening the same. The said Civil Rule, it appears has been disposed of on September 8, 1975 by directing that the authorities concerned should not excavate the leads in question without serving any notice under the said Act.

4. The notice (Annexure "B") impeached in this Rule was issued thereafter and more particularly on April 7, 1973, stating the purpose for providing proper facilities for irrigation. and drainage viz, for silt clearance of the said Khal. In support of the Rule Mr. Panda submitted that the entire proceeding was vitiated because firstly there was, not only no due formation of opinion by the competent authority but the authority concerned acted mainly on the dictates of others and secondly, for the purposes as mentioned in the notice viz., silt clearance of the said Khal, no new land was required to be acquired. In support of his first submission Mr. Panda placed the notification in Civil Rule No. 543(w) of 1972 and the one in the present case and submitted that since the first notification mentioned the purpose for providing facilities for transport and communication, for silt clearance of the said Khal and the second one speaks of irrigation and drainage for the same, there was admitted non-application of mind or formation of due opinion. It was submitted that silt clearance in the instant case was the action and not the purpose. Mr. Panda then placed the application for vacating the interim order in this case and submitted that from the statements made therein it is apparent that the power was exercised on the dictates of the Irrigation Department. Mr. Panda then submitted that there was thus two opinions formed by the Collector for the same action viz., silt clearance of the said Khal and that itself could be enough to show and establish non-application of mind or not forming the opinion bona fide and such inaction would be enough to set aside the impugned notification in Annexure 'B'. It was further submitted that in view of the order made in Civil Rule No. 543(w) of 1973, the present notification in Annexure 'B" should not have been issued also and such fact was argued in support of the second submission by Mr. Panda viz., in view of the determination in the said Civil Rule, acquisition of new lands was improper and unnecessary. To substantiate his