Skip to content


Sailendra Nath Ray Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. No. 14470 (w) of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1980Cal13
ActsWest Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 - Section 3
AppellantSailendra Nath Ray
RespondentState of West Bengal
Appellant AdvocateP.C. Sen, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.N. Banerjee and ;T.K. Sengupta, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....and mala fide. (c) the said orders are bad as they do not contain sufficient particulars of the land proposed to be acquired. 5. a rule was issued on the 4th august 1975 in the present application calling upon the respondents, namely, the state of west bengal; the collector, ali-pore, 24-parganas; the additional district magistrate, 24-parganas, alipore, the superintending engineer, c.m.d.a. and the surveyors of the special land acquisition officers, alipore, calling upon them to show cause why appropriate writs should not be issued directing them to recall and withdraw the impugned orders and why the same should not be set aside or quashed.6. this rule is opposed. an affidavit of one sushil kumar chatterjee, the collector, 24-parganas, affirmed on the 13th feb., 1976 has been filed.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.

1. Sailendra Nath Roy, the petitioner in these proceedings seeks to impugn two orders in respect of the petitioner's land under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 both dated the 31st July, 1975.

2. It is recorded in the said order that the purpose of the proposed acquisition is 'maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for transport or communication.'

3. The lands of the petitioner which are proposed to be acquired are plot No. 10172 measuring .089 acres, plot No. 10174 measuring .260 acres and .083 acres of plot No. 10178 the last under the description 'eastern portion'. In the other order the land of the petitioner proposed to be acquired is plot No. 10173 measuring .030 acres.

4. The petitioner contends that

(a) The proposed acquisition is void and illegal inasmuch as Diamond Harbour Road for the widening of which the said land was sought to be acquired was fat away from the site.

(b) The real purpose of the proposed acquisition was in no way connected with the recorded purpose and therefore the proposed acquisition was arbitrary and mala fide.

(c) The said orders are bad as they do not contain sufficient particulars of the land proposed to be acquired.

5. A Rule was issued on the 4th August 1975 in the present application calling upon the respondents, namely, the State of West Bengal; the Collector, Ali-pore, 24-Parganas; the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, Alipore, the Superintending Engineer, C.M.D.A. and the Surveyors of the Special Land Acquisition Officers, Alipore, calling upon them to show cause why appropriate writs should not be issued directing them to recall and withdraw the impugned orders and why the same should not be set aside or quashed.

6. This Rule is opposed. An affidavit of one Sushil Kumar Chatterjee, the Collector, 24-Parganas, affirmed on the 13th Feb., 1976 has been filed on behalf of the respondent 'No. 2 in opposition to the petition. It is stated in the said affidavit, inter alia, that the plot No. 10178 contains an area of .163 acres out of which 08 acres contairing structures has already been acquired for widening of Diamond Harbour Road. The balance portion of the piot containing an area of .083 acres has been requisitioned in the present proceedings as also the other contiguous plots namely plots Nos. 10172, 10173 and 10174 'in connection with' and not for the widening of the Road. The land is required for an allied and an incidental purpose, namely, settlement of small traders who had been displaced as a result of dismantling of buildings and structures in other land in widening the road.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to Section 3 of the Wesl Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 which, inter alia, provides as follows:--

'If the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for increasing employment opportunities for the people by establishing commercial estates and industrial estates in different areas or for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas, not being............ an industrial or otherarea excluded by the State Government by a notification in this behalf, by the construction or reconstruction of dwelling places............... in such areas or forthe purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto, the State Government may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning.'

8. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case the purpose of the proposed acquisition namely the settlement of the small traders had not been recorded in the said orders and that such purpose did not come within the ambit of the declared purpose, namely, the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for transport and communication.

9. Learned counsel has further drawn my attention to the description of .083 acres of land in plot No. 10178 from which the exact portion of land sought to be acquired cannot be identified.

10. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal submitted that the settlement of the displaced small traders was a purpose connected with or incidental to the main purpose, namely, the widening of the Diamond Harbour Road.

11. Reading the section and the impugned orders it appears to me that the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was declared to be provision of proper facilities for transport. It was also recorded that the alternative purpose was maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. It cannot be said that the settlement of the displaced small traders is connected with or incidental to either of the aforesaid purpose. Learned Advocate appearing for the State could not cite any authority where the settlement of displaced persons as a result of some other acquisition has been held to be incidental to such acquisition.

12. For the reasons aforesaid the petitioner succeeds in the instant case. A writ in the nature of mandamus will issue directing the respondents to recall and withdraw the said impugned orders. A writ in the nature of cerriorari would also issue setting aside or quashing the same. The rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid.

13. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //