COLLECTOR OF 24 PARGANAS AND ORS. versus LALIT MOHAN MULLICK & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 13-02-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

271 
COIµCTOR OP 24 PARGANAS AND ORS. 
v. 
LALIT MOllAll MULLICK. & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
West Bengal Land Development .and Planning Act, 1948 -
ss. 2(d)(i) and 4 -
'Settlement' of illlDigrants - Interpre-
tation of - Acquisition of 18nd -
For the 'resettlement' of 
illlDigrants - Construction of hospital for crippled children -
Whether 'Public purpose' • 
Words and phrases - 'Rehabilitation' - Meaning of. 
A notification was issued for the acquisition of the 
land belonging to the respondents under •· 4 of the West 
Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 stating that 
the land in question was needed for the public purpose for the 
resettlement of illligrante who have lligrated into the State of 
West Bengal. 'lhis was follolred by another notification under 
s. 6 of the Act. 
Later, on an inspection of the record of the Special 
Land Acquisition Officer, the tespondents came to know from 
two letters, that the acquisition was not for the purpose 
mentioned in the notification issued under s. 4, bUt for the 
Society of Experimental Medical Science for construction of a 
hospital for crippled children. 
Finding that the real purpose of acquisition was 
different from the one an,tioned in. the ncitification, the 
respondents 
approached 
the 
Land 
Acquisition 
Authority 
requesting them to cancel the notification and the land 
acquiaition proceedings on the ground that they were lll&de 
under colourable exercise of powers. 
There being no reeponse the respondent• approached the 
High Court under Article 226 to quash the notificat~n. A 
} Single Judge held that the challenge to the Notification was 
hopelessly time barred as the Writ Petition was filed after a 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
lapse of more than two years and two months from the date of 
,_. 
~ 
the Notification issued under s. 6, and 
since there was no 
satisfactory explanation for this delay the discretionary 
powers under Article 226 should not be exercised. 
In appeal the Division Bench reversed the judgment, and 
B 
held that the two letters which the respondents came across 
during the inspection of the land acquisition records, did not 
even remotely suggest that the purpose of the acquisition was 
for "settlement of immigrants" but was for the establishment 
·~ 
of a hospital for crippled children, and that the acquisition 
proceedings were consequently in bad faith to deprive the 
c 
respondents of compensation as on the date of Notification. 
In appeal to this Court, on behalf of the State -
appellants, it was contended that the notification clearly 
indicated that 
the purpose of the acquisition was 
to 
rehabilitate displaced persons which was a public purpose and 
0 
it was neither proper nor necessary to go behind the Notifi-
'I , . 
cation in a challenge based on bad faith. On behalf of the 
respondents, the appeal was contested on the ground that 
'settlement' was not 'resettlement' and since the public 
purpose shown in the notification is 'resettlement' s. 2(d)(i) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
was not attracted. 
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court and restoring that of the 
Single Jndge. 
lllUl: 1. Section 2(d)(i) of the West Bengal Land 
Developllll!llt Pla:ining Act, 1948 makes settlement of illlllligrants, 
who have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of 
circ:amtaneea beyond their control a public purpose. 
Under 
a. B(l)(b) of the Act detel'llination of the S110unt of compen-
sation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act :ls 
tlul •- aa under a. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
8-Yet, distinction 1a made in the section if the land is 
acquired for public purpose specified in s. 2(d)(i), viz. 
co.penaation abonld be restricted to the aarket value of the 
lad. DI! tlle first day of December, 1946 and not more. [276F-H; 
277 4) 
2. Seetion 2(d)(i) speaks of 'settlement' of immigrants 
wbile tlle notification Wider s. 4 speaks of 'resettlement' of 
COLLECTOR OF 24. PGNS. v. L.M. MULLICK, [KHALID, J.] 273 
_... ~ !migrants. 'l'he intention of the section is to settle those 
... 
who lligrated to West Bengal from across the border. Whether 
one mes the word 'settlement' or 'resettlement' , the intent 
is clear, and that is to provide for habitation and to extend 
other aenities to those who are displaced froa across the 
A 
border. [277 B-D) 
B 
3. 'l'he real purpose of rehabilitation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.