LexBEJOY LAKSHMI COTION MILLS LTD. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
406
BEJOY J,AKSHMI COTION MILLS LTD.
v.
STATE OF WF.ST BENGAL AND ORS.
January 18, 1967
[K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI,
V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.j
Constitution of India, Art. 166(2) cu1d (3)-Authen1ica1io11 oc:cordin.i.:
to Rules made by Governor-Whether conclusive of the Go\•ernor having
acted in accordance with law.
A
B
We.st Bengal Land Developnren1 and P/anniflg Act, 1948---.Voti{u:ation
under s. 4 and declaration under s. 6--Whether required to be nwde 01z
c
Governor's personal satis/action-Minist.t•r making Standing Order under
the Rules of Business made by Governor llnder
Art. 166(3)-.Wlrelher
proceeding under the Act covered by the
Standing
Order-Therefore
whether required to be dealt with by Minister.
1be Slate Gove.rnment i""ued a notification in February 1955 under
s. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, to
the effect that certain lands, a major portion of which belonged to the
D
appellant. wete likely 10 be needed for a public purpose.
This 11Dlifical1on
waa signed by the Assistant Secretary in the Land and Revenue Depart·
ment of the State Government.
A development scheme was then. pre-
pared and after objections to it had been invited and disposed of, rhe
Land Planning Committee which is the pre.<cribed authority under 1he
Act. n:oommended acceptance of the scheme and the issue of a declaration
under s. 6 of the Act.
This declaration was issued by the Govemmonl
in July 1956 and was signed by the Deputy Secretary in the same Drpart-
E
me-at.
The appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the C'A.)nstitulion
praying.that the notification under s. 4 and the declaration under :-;. 6 be
quashed. It was contended hy him that the entire proceedings ""'ere \'oitl
for the reasons, inter alia, (i) that the notification, the declaration, and the
sanctioning of the scheme for the notified area were all done by the Assis-
tant or Deputy Secret~ry and the State Government could not be said to
F
have applied its mind in the proceedings; inasmuch as the executive power
of the State is vested in the Governor ur.der An. 154(1) of the Conslilu-
tion, it is satisfaction of the Governor that is contemplated ut"lder ss. 4 and
6 of the Act; (ii) that under the Rules of Business made by the Governor
under Art. 166(3), the Ministcr-in-<:harge had issued a Slanding Order
on NO\"elllber 29, 1959 specifying matters which were required to ho
referred to him: as the proceedings taken under the ATtic1e fe11 within
cenain Items of that Standing Order, they could only be deall with hy the
G
Minister himself and were in fact not so dealt with.
On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Slale (i) !hat
as tho notification and tho declaration were authenticated according to
the Rules made by the Governor under Art. 166(2) and "' they al"°
contained a recital that the Govemor was of the opinion tho lands were
needed for a public purpose, thus showing that the Governor's satisfaction
was made out, it was not open to the appellant to go behind and question
H
their validitv; and (ii) that the oroccedings taken in the case did not fail
under any of the -items in the Standing Order and did not therefore re-
quire to be brought to the notice of the Minister before is.~ue of orders.
A
B
c
D
E
F
BEJOY COTTON MILLS V, W. BENGAL
407
The Single Bench that heard the petition, while rejecting the other
contentions of the appellant, held that the proceedings taken under the
Act fell withm item 18 of the Standing Order which covered all cases
proposed to be taken up by the Land Planning Committee and Item 29
relating to cases under the Land Acquisition Act; they should therefore
have been referred to the Minis~er; as this had admittedly not been done,
the entire proceedings were illegal and void.
However, ~ Division ~each,
in appeal, took the view that while item 29 of the Standmg Order did not
apply at all, under.item 18 it was only necessary that the proceedmgs after
the issue of the notification under s. 4 should be dealt with by the Minister.
It therefore upheld that notification but set aside all the subsequent pro-
ceedings.
In appeal before this Court the only ~uestion for consideration was
whether the notification under s. 4 was vahdly issued.
HELD: Dismissing the appeal,
The High Court had rightly upheld the validity of the notification
under s. 4 of the Act.
When authentication is in accordaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.