LexSACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY.& ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 79.S SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY.& ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. February 19, 1971 (S. M. SIKRI, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ,] Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954-Cilandernagore (Assimilation of L<'lt's) Act, 1955-Exten•ion of Wes; Bengal Laws IP · Chandernagort territory-Wm Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 whether applicable to Chandernagore by virtue of Merger and Assimilation Acts afo•esald-Powtr of Collect01· to requisition land whether confined to areo of Hooghly District before merger of Chandernagore. · The French settlement of Chandermrgore was merged in the State of West Bengal with effect from October 2, 1954 by virtue of the Chander- nagore (Mc'rger) Act, 1954. It was made part of Hoogly District. By s. 17 of the Merger Act the laws relating to Lists I and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, in force in West Bengal 'generally' were extended to the merged territory. By s. 18 the corresponding Jaws of French chandc'rnagore . were repealed. '-TQe Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955 by s. 3 thereof extended the laws relating to List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in force in West Bengal to the merged territory. By s. 4 the correspc>nding laws in force before merger we're repealed. The Collector of Hoogly in exercise of Powers conferred on him by notification dated May 11, 1948 made two orders under s. 3(1) of the Acquisition Act. The appellants challenged them in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition being. dismissed api)eal was filed in this Court. It was contended : · (i) that the clrders of requisition were illegal as the Acquisition Act under which they were issued did not apply to the territory pre\fously known as French Chandernagore; (ii) that under the notitjcation dated May 11, 1948 the Collector could exercise the powers of requisition only in respect of lands within the locaniinits of the territories then fotming part of the Hooghly District. HELD : (i) The first contention had no force. Section 3 of the Chan- dernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 made Chandernagore part of the State.of West Bengal and s. 17 extended the Acquisition Act to it. Tlie •Acquisi- tion Act was a law within the meaning of 'law'· contained in s;·2(c) of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act because it related to a matter enu.merated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution whic~ refers to acquisition and requisitioning of property. In so far as the· Acquisition Act related to entry 42 of List III which deals with comiien- sation, it was applied by s. 3 of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955, and s. 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, read with the definition. of the word 'laws' in s. 2(d) of the latter Act. [799 F• 800 A] ' The argument that the Acquisition Act was not in fclrce in West Bengal 'generally' because it was extended for short periods from time to time,. could not be accepted. The word 'generally' refers to the territory ·of West Bengal and not to the duration of time during which it had to operate. [800 B-C] ·~ The contention that because there was no corresponding law within· the meaning of ·s. 17 of the Merger Act and s. ·4 of the Assimilation Act, s. 3 of the latter Act did not have the effect of extending the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore must also be rejected. Section 4 has .. a limited effect 79H SUPRFME COURT REPORTS (1971 J 3 S.CK. and that is that ·if there :s a corrcsj,onding law then that law shall. ;is from that date, stand 'repealed in (~handcrnagore. If there is no corresponding law then s. 4 does not operate and it has no effect on the scope ot s. 3. f800 DJ A The fact that there ":as no la\v of rcquisifoning of property in French t~rritory could not mean that the citiz'!n ·enjoyed th~ privilege of in1rnunitv 1rom such a law. If by virtue of s. 3 of the Assimilation of Laws Act .:1n Act hccomcs applicable to Ch;indcrnagorc all Privileges and imn1unities in conflict with the Act would cease to exist. [800 E-FJ B (ii) The High Court was right in holding that the Collector of Hooj!ly 1u1J the otuthority to issue lhc orders in question. .Jf the order of requisi- tion is by a Collector then the notification of 1948 applies and the C<>l- Jcctoi' of Hoogly \\-Ould he authorised to issue orders rcqu:sitioning J.and c.xi'iting in ChanJcrnagorc hecausc Chandernagore had come \\:ithi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.