LexS. M. NANDY & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, A B c D E 791 S. M. NANDY & ORS. v .. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. February 19, 1971 [S. M. S!KRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Wert Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-lf ultra vires Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f) and (5). On the question whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acqui- sition) Act, 1948, W!)S ultra vires the Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f) read with 19(5). HELD : The State of West Bengal was faced with many emergent pro- blems created by the partition of India and the impugned Act was enacted in order to provide for requisitioning and speedy acquisition of land under s. 3 for a number of public purposes mentioned therein. The necessity for requisitioning must necessarily be left to the State Government. Though there is no express provision to make a representation against an order of requisition undelr s. 3 (2) there is no bar to such a representation being made and to its being considered by the State Government or appropriate Governmental Authorities. If, however, any order is made for any colla- teral purpose, dr has been made for purposes not mentioned in s. 3 of the Act, or is mala fide, it can always be challenged in a civil court. Under ss, 7 (3) and ( 4), 8 and SA of the Act, fair compensation bas been pro- vided for requisitioning which is determinable by a civil court, if there is a dispute regarding the amount, and ultimately by the High Court and this Court. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act, are not unreasonable. [792 C, D; 794 D-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 500 Of 1967. F Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. H 104 Of 1963. . Arun Kumar Datta and D. N. Mukh11rjee, for the appellants. Niren De, Attorney-General and P. K. Chakravarti for the respondent. ' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C.J. The following question has been referred to the Cons~tut!on Bench under the proviso to art. 145 ( 3) of the Constitution : "~~7ther the West ~engal Land (Requisition and Acqms1tion) Act 1948 JS ultra vires the Constitution under art. 19(1 )(f) read with art. 19(5) ?" - '",. 792 SUPREME·COURT REPORTS [197 l j 3 S.C.R. The learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Arun Kumar J?~tta, challenges the Wi:st Bengal Land (Requisition and Acqui- s1t1on) Act, 1948-heremafter referred to as the impugned act-- on the ground that it does not impose reasonable restrictions within art. 19 ( 5) of the Constitution. He urges three grounds in this respect. First, he says, that there is no provision for a notice to the ownet or the occupier of the property before an order of requisition is passed, secondly, there is no provision for an appeal against the order of requisition, and thirdly, a civil suit is barred under s. 11 of the impugned Act. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned coun- sel it is necessary to set out the scheme of the Act. The impugn- ed act was enacted in order to provide for requisitioning and . speedy acquisition of land for a_ number of public purposes. These purposes are : ( 1) maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; ( 2) provide proper facilities for trans- port, communication, irrigation or drainage; and ( 3) creation of better living conditions in urban or rural areas by the construe- .lion or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas. The State of West Bengal was faced with many emergent problems created by the partition of India, and this Act was designed to · meet these problems in a speedy manner. Section 3 enables the State Government to requisition land for the purposes mentioned above. A Collector of a district, an Additional District Magis- trate or the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, when authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may exercise within his jurisdiction tile powers of requisitioning conferred by sub-s. (1). Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provides for service of this order in the prescribed manner on the owner of land and also on the occupier not being owner of land. Under sub-s. ( 3) of s. 3 the Collector, or' any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf is entitled to execute the order in the manner mentioned therein, if the order passed under su b-s. ( 2) is not complied with by any person. Ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.