SMT. SITABATI DEBI & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 01-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SITABATI DEBI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
December 1, 1961 
B 
(P. 13. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WASCHOO, 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
K. C. DAS GUPTA AND 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.] 
Co11stitu1ion of India, 1950, Arts. 19 and 31(1) and (2)-l<M wuler 
Art. 31(2)-/f .rnhject 10 Arr. 19(1)(/). 
Before tho Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, it had been 
held by this Court in Bhanjl Munji's case [19551 I S.C.R. 777 and other 
earlier cases, that both clauses (I) and (2) of the Art. 31 of the Consti-
tution dealt with a Jaw giving pov.·er to the State to acqu:re or requisition 
property, and that, Art. 19(! )(f) was not attracted to such a law. After 
the Amendment, in Kochunrs case [1960! 3 S.C.R. 837, this Court held 
that cl. (2) of the Art. 31 alone dealt with acquisition and requisition 
of property hy the State, that cl. (I) dealt with depr:vation of property 
in other ways, and that, a law under cl. (I) had r.o satisfy the te:st of 
reasonableness under Art .. 19(1). The Court also obse·ved that Bhanji 
Munji's case "no longer holds the field". 
This Court, in Babu 
Barkva 
Thakur's case, J 19611 I S.C.R. 128, decided after Kochuni's case held 
that an Act providing for acquisition or requis:tion of property hy the 
State could not be at'acked for the reason that it onended Art. 19(l)(f). 
The appellant's land was requisitioned under the West Bengal Land 
(Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and •he questioned the validity 
of the Act by a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that it 
offended Art.19(1)(f). The High Court followed lhe decision in Barha 
Thakur's case- and dismissed the petition. 
In appeal to this Court it Was contended that Barkva Thak11r's case 
was based on Bhanj Munji'• case which had lost its authority in view of 
Kochuni's case and that therefore, should not have been followed. 
HELD :Kochuni's ca'ie was not 
concerned with a law of requisition 
or acquisition. 
Therefore, the observation in that case he; to be under· 
stood as only meaning that Bhanji Munji's case no longer governs a case 
of deprivation of property by means other than requisition and acquisition 
by the State. There is thus no conflict between Barkva Thakur's case and 
Kochuni's case with respect to acquisition and requisition of property by 
the State under Art. 31 (2) and, therefore the valtdity of an Act relating 
to acquisition or requisition cannot be questioned 
on the ground that it 
offends Art. 19(1 )(f) an~ need not be 
tested by the criterion in Art. 
19(5).[951 F-H; 952 B-Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 322 of 
1961. 
Appeal by speci~: leave from the judgment and order dated 
H 
January 31, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court, in Civil Rule No. 
2112 of 1957. 
Arun Kumar Dutra and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. 
·950 
SUPllBMB COUllT llBPOllTS 
[1967) 2 S.C.ll. 
S. M. Bose, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal, 
S. C. Bo.>e :11;d P. K. Bme, for the respondents. 
The Jud!lmcnt of the Court was delivered by 
Sarkar, J. In this ca'c the validity of the West Bengal Land 
( Requi,ition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was questioned by the 
appellants by a petition moved under Art. 226 of the Constitu-
tion in the High Court at Calcutta. The High 
Court having 
dismi"cd the petition, the :1ppcllants have filed this appeal with 
'pecial leave granted by this Court. 
The Act provided for requisition and also for acquisition of 
land by the 
Seate Government "for maintaining 
supplies and 
services essential 10 the life of the community or for providing 
proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drain-
age, or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or 
urban areas ........ by the construction or 
reconstruction of 
dwelling places for people residing in such areas." 
The Act 
provided for payment of compensation in respect of requisition and 
acquisition made under it. 
An order was made under the Act on July 22, 1957 requi-
tioning certain lands belonging to one of the .ipJY!llants, the other 
appellant being a Jessee thereof, and it was stated in the order 
that possession would be taken on August 2, 1957. 
Thereupon 
the appellants filed the petition. 
The appellants challenged the validity of the Act in the High 
Court on various grounds. 
In this Court however 
only 
one 
ground was advanced in support of the appeal and that alone, 
therefore, we are called upon to discuss in this judgment. 
It was said that the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.