MRINALINI ROY RATNA PROVA MONDAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MRINALINI ROY RATNA PROVA MONDAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss. 3(a), 4(1), 6(3)-l'Land"-Tank fisheries-Acquisition of for 
C rehabilitation of difplaced fishemien-Notification u/s . . 4( I), published for 
reclamation of fishe1ies-Held, Tank fishelies are land and acquisition was 
for public purpose-Expression 'land' includes benefits to alise out of the land 
and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached 
to earth-Tank fisheries would be a benefit to arise out of land-Acquisition 
to rehabilitate displaced fishemien to eke out livelihood in reclamation tank 
D fishelies is not inconsistent with public purpose which become conclusive u/s. 
6(3). 
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Suburban Agliculture Dairy & Fisheries 
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (1993] Supp. 4 SCC 674, held inapplicable. 
E 
State of West Bengal v. Shebaits of Jswar Shri Saradiya Thakurani & 
Ors., AIR (1971) SC 2097 at 2098 para 3, cited. 
Pasupati Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR (1974) Calcutta 99, 
disapproved. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2486-90 
of 1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.75 of the Calcutta High 
Court in 0.0. Nos. 1021-25 of 1973. 
G 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh aod P.K. Chakraborty for the Appellants. 
Tapas Ray and Rathio Das for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judg-
70 
-
.... 
MRINALINIROYRA1NAPROVAMONDALv. STATE 
71 
ment of the Calcutta High Court dated May 27, 1975 in FMA Nos. A 
1021-25/73. 
It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in these cases. Suffice it to 
to state that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on May 14, 1956 for reclamation 
of the fisheries in the lands comprising cadastral plots enumerated in the 
notification, of an extent admeasuring more or less 8760.53 acres. Decla-
ration under Section 6 was published on January 5, 1971 declaring that the 
land for the reclamation of th.e Southern Salt Lake area was published. We 
are concerned presently to an extent of 1495.93 acres only. It was con-
tended in the High Court and also repeated by Dr. S. Ghosh, learned 
senior counsel, that the "land", as defined under Section 3(a) does not 
include fisheries; that is made explicit by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 
1981 bringing "fishery" within the admit of the word 'land'. It would indicate 
that the authorities have understood that the Act does not apply to acquisi-
B 
c 
tion of the fisheries rights and, therefore, the acquisition was without 
authority of law. In support thereof, Dr. Ghosh placed reliance on the D 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Pasupati Roy 
v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR (1974) Calcutta 99 and State of West 
Bengal & Ors. v. Suburban Agiicu/ture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 
(1993] Supp. 4 SCC 674 paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 16 and in State of West 
Bengal v. Shebaits of Iswar Slui Saradiya Ihakurani & Ors., AIR (1971) SC 
2097 at 2098 para 3. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the conten-
tions of the learned counsel. The expression 'land' includes benefits to arise 
out of land and, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to 
anything attached to the earth. Tank fisheries cannot servive independent 
of the tank and there cannot be a tank without the land. Therefore, the 
expression 'land' is required to be understood in that perspective when the 
tank fisheries are sought to be acquired. Tank fisheries thereby would be 
a benefit to arise out of the land. Thereby the word 'land' should be 
understood to have been by the elongated definition since it defines with 
inclusiveness that the tank fisheries is a benefit to arise out of land. 
E 
F 
It is then contended that the acquisition is not for a public purpose G 
and, therefore, the Notification is bad in law. We find no force in the 
contention. It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 expressly men-
tions that the acquisition was for reclamation of the Salt Lake area. 
Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act gives conclusiveness to the public 
purposes. 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
It is true that a memo was filed on behalf of the Fisheries Depart-
( 
ment and was reiterated in the counter-affidavit ftled in the Hig

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