LexJIWANI DEVI PARAKI versus FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CALCUTTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 6S6 JIWANI DEVI PARAKI v. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, CALCUTTA AND ORS. 30th August, 1984 [V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARH, JJ.] West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1947-Whether the State Government's requistion of the building under the 1947 Act for indifinite periods by renewing the said temporary A.ct itself amounts to indirect acfuisition of property under the Land Acquisit/on A.ct and hence the exercise of power under the 1947 Act is improper and nmlajide-West Bengal Lttnd Acquisition Act, Section 49 (!). The petitioner is the lessee of the premises No. 7/IA-D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta which is situated in an important comn1ercial locality of Calcutta. ThC ,round floor and n1ezzanine floor of the said premise5 were requisitioned by Government for establishin& n1ain Sales Show room of respondent No. 4, namely west Bengal Handicrafts and Development Corporation Ltd., by an order of requisition No. 21 /58-Reqn. dated 25.2.1958 under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1947. Though this Act itself is a temporary Act, this has been renewed from tin1e to time, the last one renewing it upto 31st March, 1985. Aggrieved by the piece-meal extension of the 1947 Act and the requ1s1uon- ing of his premise5 since 1985, the petitioner challenged 1he same by a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and contended that (a) the West Bengal prcn1ises Requisition Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1947 cannot be conver· ted into permanent Act and tht"refore requisition of his premises cannot be a permanent requisition ; (b) Requistioning the property in this manner for more than 25 years amounts to indirect acquisition of the p_ropcrty and is a fraud upon the power ;and (c) It violates both Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) or the Cons- titution, since the petitioner who himself requires the pre1niscs for his own busi- ne5s is prevented from usin~. Disposin& of the petition, the Court HELD : 1. There arc significant differences bet·.veen 'requisition' and 'acquisition'., Normally the expression ;requisition is taking possession of the property for a limited period in contradistinction to acqllisition. This popular meaning has to be kept in mind in judging whether in a particular case there has been in fact any abuse of the power. The distinction between 'requisition' and 'acquisition' is also evident from Entry 42 in List UI of the Seventh Schedule, Oriainal Article 31 clause (2) of the Constitution recongnised the distinction betwen compulsory acquisition and requisition of the property. The two • • • !I • .. • ' .. I • J.D. PARAKrv. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOJ. 687 concept5 are different ; in one title passes to the acquiring authority, in the other title remains with the owner, the possession goes to the requiring autho- rity. One is the taking over of the title and the other is the taking over. of the possession. Thus the orders of requisition and acquisition have different con- sequences and affect the owners concerned in different manners. But the State has the power both of requisition as well as acquisition, subject to one condition that is the property acquired or requisitioned must be for public purpose ; Mangilal Karwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 Nagpur p. 153 at p. 157 approved, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Others [1950] I SCR p, 869 referred to. [695H; G; 696A-B] 2. Under Section 49 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1942 as amended by the West Bengal Act 32 of 1955, even a part of the building or a house can be acquired provided the conditions mentioned and the procedure specified therein are followed and there is no absolute bar to the acquisition of a part of a house or a building. [697FI 3 : I It will not be correct to say that in no case can an order of requisi· tion for permanent purpose be made but in a situation where the purpose of requisitioning the property is of a permanent character and where the Govern- ment has also the power and the opportunity to acquire the property or a part thereof especially upon the fulfilment of the conditions of section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended by the West Bengal Act) to the extent applicable, if the Government chooses not to exercise that power nor attempts to exercise that power to achieve its purpose, than that will be bad not because the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.