M/S. TANDON BROTHERS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 03-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. TANDON BROTHERS 
-./ 
>-
v. 
' 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 3, 2001 
B 
[A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERIBE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition : 
)I. 
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953: Section 6(3). 
c 
Acquisition/Requisition-State Govenzment issued notice for acquiring a 
pal1 of a tea estare-Owner objected to such acquisition contending that only 
half of the area plVposed to be acquired could be declared surplus-No fu11her 
action taken-After a period of nearly 41h months a second notice was issued 
in supersessio11 'of the first notice requisitioning a larger area directing the 
D 
owner to deliver possession ~f the surplus land-Single Judge quashed the 
second notice-Division Bench reversed the sanie-Second Notice-Legality 
of-Held: There is no justifiable rea.wn for change of quantum of land-State 
Government is bound by its own norice·-Doctrine of estoppel is applicable-
Hence, second norice not valid-Defence of India Act, 1962, S. 29. 
E 
DoctrinPS: 
~ 
' 
Doctrine of Estoppel-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases : 
F 
0 Supersession "-Meaning of 
The appellant was the owner of a tea estate and the respondent 
issued a notice under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition 
Act, 1953 for acquiring a part of the tea estate as being surplus to the 
rL'<JUirement of the tea estate. The appellant objected to such acquisition on 
G 
the ground that retention for Governmental purposes could only be 
restricted to about half of the area proposed to be acquired. However, the 
respondent took no further action for a long time. Subsequently, the appel-
lant was served with several notices under Section 29 of the Defence of 
• 
India Act, 1962 requisitiong a major portion of the tea estate including a 
)---
H 
large area under actual cultivation. 
960 
\ j-
TANDON BROTHERS v. STATE 
961 
; 
After a gap of nearly 4-112 years the appellant reeeived a second 
A 
• 
notice intimating that a decision under Seetion 6(3) of the Act in respeet of 
'r 
the acquisition of the surplus land would be taken on a certain date. 
Thereafter, the appellant moved the appropriate authority for payment of 
compensation for the lands taken over and also reeeived some part pay-
ment. The appellant was informed that further payment would be elTeeted 
B 
only after decision under Seetion 6(3) of the Act. The High Court disposed 
of the writ petition tiled by the appellant directing the respondent to 
determine the compensation payable within a period of six months. 
Thereafter, the appellant received a second notice hy which the 
appellant was directed to deliver possession of the lands declared surplus c 
to the requirement of the tea estate. The appellant tiled a writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the order of delivery of possession. A 
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the 
second notice. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this 
Judgment. Hence this appeal. 
D 
AllO\ving the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Existence of justifiable reasons in the matter ol' formation 
of opinion is the principle condition and any contra action would have the 
effect of the same being ascribed as an arbitrary exercise of power, which 
E 
, 
). 
is admittedly an antithesis of law. The powers stand conferred on to the 
State Government but to act in accordance with law and in order to act in 
that direetion, State Government shall have to have relevant materials 
pertaining to the requirements of tea gardens. A person sitting in the office 
in a metropolitan city cannot, in fact, decide the issue without taking 
reeonrse to actuals on the filed or on the garden and that is the precise 
F 
reason as to why the field study was effected on the first occasion hy the 
Settlement Officer and the subsequent deliberations of the Tea Garden 
Advisory Committee wherein a part of the tea estate has been treated as 
surplus to the requirement of the tea estate. The power of review in terms 
of the proviso to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 
G 
1953 obviously shall have to he exercised upon materials on record and not 
de hors the same. (971-C-F] 
---< 
2. Govermnent records ought to have its sanctity undoubtedly and to 
have a particular state of affairs should also be borne out from the reeords 
and if the same is not produced before the Court or withheld from the 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Court, there is no reason whatsoever as to why the 

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