LexRAI BAHADUR GANGA BISHNU SWAIKA & ORS. versus CALCUTTA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ A RAI BAHADUR GANGA BISHNU SWAIKA & ORS. B c D E F G H_- v. CALCUITA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY & ORS. October 30, 1967 [S. M. SUCRI AND J. ¥· SHELAT, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), s. 6--Satisfaction of the Govern- ment as to the p'urpose of and need for acquisitian-If should appec.•r in the declarc::on. Under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government issued a declaration with respect to the land of the !st respondent after considering the report· under s. SA of the Act. The declaration used the words 'as it appears to the Goveraor that the land is required to be taken for a public purpose' instead of the words 'the Governor is satisfied that the land is needed for a public purpose'. A suit filed by the 1st respondent against the State Government and others challenging the declaration was decreed in second appeal by the High Court, on the ground· that : ( 1) the satisfaction of .the Government as . to the purpose of and the need for acquiring the suit land must appear in the declaration .itself; and (2) as the declaration used the words 'it appears to the Governor etc.,' instead of the words 'the Governor is satisfied etc.' it did not show 5uch satisfaction and therefore was· not in propef form ;.rti<l could not form the legal basis for the acquisition. In. appeal to this Com;t, , HELD : There being no· statutory form and s. 6 not requirin,e; the declaration to be made in any particular form, the -ritere fact that thc- dec;Jaration does not ex facie show the Government's satisfaction, assum- ing that the words 'it appears' used in the declaration do not mean satis- faction.. would not make the declaration invalid or not in conformity with- s. 6. [123 El Satisfaction of the Government after consideration of the report, if any, made under s. SA is undoubtedly a condition precedent to a valid declaration. But there is nothing in s. 6( I) which- requires that th" satisfaction should be stated in the declaration, the . only declaration required by the sub-section being, that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a company. [I 22G·H] Observations in Ezr•· Y. Secretary of State, I.L.R. 30 Cal. 36, at p. SI. approved. Further, it is immaterial ·whether or not such satisfaction is stated in the declaration. For, even if it was so stated a person interested in the land can always challenge, as a matter of fact, that the Government was not actually satisfied, and in such a case, _the G6vcmmcnt would have to satisfy the court by leading evidence that it was so satisfied. In the present case. the fact that the Government was satisfied was never challenged, the only contention raised being, that as the declaration did. not state such satisfaction it did not establish such satisfaction. 'Illerc- forc, it was not necessary for the Government to lead any cvhJcncc to• prove its satisfaction. [123F-HJ [Whether the words 'it appears ·to the Governor 'that the land is requircJ to be taken for a public purpose' and the words 'the Governor is satisfied that the land is needed for a puhfic purpose' arc synonymous .. not decided. [122F.Q] I l 8 SL'PRDl1' COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.C.R. <~IVIL - APPELLATE JuRISDICTJuN : Civil Appeal No. 136 of A 1965. Appeal from the j udgmem and decree dated March 4, 1960 ,if the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1021O[1957. S. V. Gupte, and D. _N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. B B. K. Bhallacharya, M. K. Gli-;,~ and P. K. Ghose for respondent No. I. -- -' I'. C. Chatteriee. G. S. Chatterje~ and P. K. Bo.1e, for respon- dent :No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sllelat, J. One Arunshashi Dasi, Charn Chandra Sur and Jotish Chandra Sur were the owners of the sflit land admeasuring 1.15 acres situate in Rishra Municipality, West Bengal. On November 15, 1920 they leased the land to Srikrishna Goshala. On September I 0, 1924, the said Goshala sold its leasehold interest in the said land ·to the 1st respondent Society. On Sep- tember 5, 1935 the Society sold the said leasehold interest to one Sovaram Sanna. In 1941, the said Jotish ~ur filed a Rent Suit against Sovaram and obtained an ex parte decree against him. On September 9, I 941 1he said Jotish in execution of the said dxrec and at an auction sale held thereunder purchased Sovaram ·s interest and took posscss10n of the land. Thereafter. Sovaram "s widow and son filed a suit a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.