A notice of requisition issued under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 must be accompanied by an opinion of the Collector as to the necessity of requisitioning the particular land for the specific public purpose mentioned therein and must specify the particular portion of the premises intended to be requisitioned.

This application is directed against a notice, annexure 'C', issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. Respondent No.2, on December 8. 1972 whereby in the schedule of the previous notice issued on May 24, 1972, the figure 101A, Rakhaldas Addy Road had been substituted in place of 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road.

2. The facts as alleged in the petition, in short, are that the Respondent No.2 issued a notice of requisition under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquistion) Act, 1948, Act II of 1948. requisitioning a portion of premises No. 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road in Holding No.86 of the Calcutta. Municipality for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for sinking a big diameter tubewell for a bustee area as required by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. After the issuance of the said notice the Respondent No. 3 proceeded to encroach upon the land of the petitioner who is a Receiver of the debuttar estate of the deities, Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Thakur Jew and Sri Sri Iswar Gopeswar Siva Thakur Jew, whereupon the petitioner as Receiver filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 293(A) of 1972, in the 2nd. Court of Munsif at Alipore for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority from encroaching upon the petitioner's land for the purpose of sinking tubewell. In that suit the petitioner obtained an order of temporary injunction. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the meantime this impugned notice was issued by the Respondent No.2 whereby the schedule of the original notice of requisition was amended by substituting premises No. 101A, Rakhal Das Addy Road in place of premises No. 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road. It is against this notice this Rule has been obtained.

3. Mr. Mukharji, learned Advocate for the petitioner, raises two fold contentions in support of the said Rule. The first dimension of Mr. Mukharji's contention is that the purported notice of amendment is illegal and unwarranted inasmuch as there is no opinion of the Collector as to the necessity of this particular plot to be requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for the purpose of sinking deep tubewell to supply drinking water to the people of the locality which is a condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of requisition. In support of this contention Mr. Mukharji further submits that it has not been stated by the Respondents that in the file for requisition there is the satisfaction of the Collector as to the necessity of requisition portion of premises No. 101 A, Rakhal Das Addy Road for the particular public purpose specified in the notice of requisition and as such by simply making this amendment in the schedule, this notice of requisition cannot be said to be in compliance with the provisions of section 3(1) of the said Act.

4. The second dimension of Mr. Mukharji's submission is that the notice of requisition is patently bad inasmuch as the portion of the aforesaid premises 'intended to be requisitioned has not been specified at all and as such this amended order is not sustainable in law. It is on this ground also Mr. Mukharji assailed the validity of the said notice of requisition.

5. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3 on the other hand submits that the requisition in question being admittedly for a public purpose, the provisions of section 3 (1) of the said Act empowers the Collector to make necessary amendment in the notice of requisition inasmuch as the existence of public purpose for which the aforesaid premises is intended to be requisitioned is not disputed. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that this plot was lying vacant and the petitioner made an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for permission to lease out this land to a local College for the p