Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Md. Mumtaz Khan, JJ.
Shyamal Sircar & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
APO 59 of 2016, GA 3704 of 2015 & WP 756 of 2013
Decided On : 26-04-2018
For the Appellant : Debayan Bera, Sakti Prasad Chakraborti
For the Respondent: Mrs. Chama Mookherjee Sucharita Roy, Anuj Singh, Ajay Gaggar, S. Sarawagi
For the Official Liquidator : Smita Das Dey
The acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must serve a public purpose and should not be tainted by fraud or motive of transferring the land to a third party for private purpose.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 17(4) - The court dismissed the writ application challenging the acquisition of land for public purpose, rejecting the contentions that the acquisition was an abuse of process of law and served no public purpose. The acquired land was later sold to a private party for commercial activities. The court held that the acquisition was for the betterment of the company and not tainted by fraud or motive of transferring the land to a third party for private purpose. The court also noted the gross delay in filing the writ and the creation of diverse third party interests, affirming the trial court's judgment and dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The National Rubber Manufacturer Limited, now known as Tyre Corporation of India Limited (TCIL), was a lessee of the subject land under the Sircars. The lease expired, and civil proceedings for eviction were initiated. TCIL proposed to acquire the land, and the acquisition was challenged on the ground of abuse of process of law and lack of public purpose. The land was later sold to a private party for commercial activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition was for the betterment of TCIL and not tainted by fraud or motive of transferring the land to a third party for private purpose. It noted the gross delay in filing the writ and the creation of diverse third party interests.
Issues: The issues included the abuse of process of law, lack of public purpose, and the transfer of the acquired land to a private party for commercial activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition was not tainted by fraud and was for the betterment of the company. It also noted the inequity of reversing the acquisition after a long delay and the creation of diverse third party interests.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
1. The National Rubber Manufacturer Limited, now known as Tyre Corporation of India Limited (TCIL), was at one point of time up to the early eighties a lessee of the subject land under the Sircars. Their lease expired. The Sircars initiated civil proceedings for their eviction. During the pendency of the proceedings, in February, 1984 National Rubber was converted into a government company, TCIL. Since, the above proceedings for eviction of TCIL were decreed upto the first appeal level and second appeals were pending, they proposed to the Central Government to acquire the land in question, through the State Government.
2. The property in question compromises of premises Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 Chingrighata Lane, Kolkata – 700015. The Industries department of the Government of West Bengal, on 17th September, 1988 initiated steps for acquisition of this property, measuring 3.1896 acres.
3. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official gazette on 12th October, 1988. The Section 6 declaration was published on 22nd May, 1989.
4. The notification making a declaration of acquisition was challenged by Bimal Kumar Sarkar in a writ application before this Hon’ble Court (C.O. No.1751 (W) of 1990). The acquisition process was challenged mainly on the ground that it was undertaken to defeat the decree of a Civil Court to evict TCIL from the premises and hence was an abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the acquisition served no public purpose.
5. Rejecting all the contentions of the writ petitioner, this Court dismissed the writ application on 29th October, 2003. A partial award was passed on 30th June, 1990. After dismissal of the above writ application on 29th October, 2003, on 1st December, 2004 the balance award was made. The persons entitled to receive compensation received it. The entire three acres of land stood vested in the state. The requiring body was TCIL which continued to possess the land.
6. Now TCIL’s manufacturing facility at Tangra was in excess of 16 acres which included this three acre’s plot.
7. The affairs of the Tangra unit of TCIL (they had another unit in Kakdeep in North 24 Paraganas) were considered by the BIFR under the SICA Act, 1985. The Board set up an asset sale Committee for the purpose of selling the Tangra unit of TCIL to pay off its creditors. On 5th April, 2004, the Board informed TCIL, that it approved, the recommendation of this committee for sale of the Tangra unit. The entire 16 acres of land were valued at Rs.27 crores and sold for Rs.27.81 crores to the respondent No.4. Only this respondent had made an offer in excess of the valuation. On 31st December, 2004, the entire land belonging to the Tangra unit of TCIL was conveyed to respondent No.4.
8. According to the statement of the respondent No.4 recorded before the trial court it obtained sanction of its plan for constructing several buildings by or about March, 2008. The learned Judge recorded in the impugned judgment and order that several towers has been raised although the final tower had not come up.
9. The principal ground if not the only ground on which the appellant/petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings is this. It is argued on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, that the acquired land was not used for public purpose by the requiring authority although it was acquired for this purpose.
10. Secondly, the private respondent to whom the land was transferred was doing pure and simple commercial activities from the premises.
11. Thirdly, the respondents had practised fraud on their power to acquire land and had abused this power.
12. There is some authority for the view that if the erstwhile owner of the land discovers after the acquisition of his land by the State that it is not being used for public purposes, then he has the right to first cause its inspection to be made and thereafter take appropriate steps in the matter.
