SRI NRIPATI GHOSHAL, FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS. versus PREMAVATL KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 23-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI NRIPATI GHOSHAL, FIRST LAND ACQUISITION 
B 
c 
COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
v. 
PRE!v!AVATl KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 23, 1996 
iK RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
VVest Bengal Preniiscs Requisition and Control (Tcn1jJora1y Provisions) 
1947: Section 3( 1). 
• 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, SA, 6, 11 and 12. 
Land-Acquisition and Requisition-Validity of-Premises requisi-
tioned under !Vest Bengal Act for defence p1upose--Pre111ises in possession 
of Indian Nai:v-W!it challenging requisition-in the 111eanivhile acquisition 
D proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act-High Cowt holding 
that there 11.•as no public ]Jlll]JOse in requisition-In view of acquisition 
proceeding alreac(v initiated 1-iizh Cotat a'vvarding four nionths' ti111e to coni-
plete enquhy and pass a1vard-Direction to hand over possession in case of 
default-In the 111ea11tin1e acquisition beco111ingfi11al-Another tt-·1it by respon-
E 
F 
dent-Dismissal by single J11dge--Division Bench holding that there was no 
public purpose and that the acquisition was ma/a fide-Appeal-Held 
notification and declaration became final before the single Judge passed its 
orde1~P11b/ic pwpo.ce viz. defence pwpose got Cl)'Stalized before the judgment 
ivas rendered by High Cciu11-There were no n1ala fidcs in acquisition-Ac-
quisition was for p11b/ic µwpose. 
Govemment litigation-Delay in preferring appeals by govern-
111ent-Deprecation of-Suggestion by Suprenze Coi:11 that Cabinet Conunittee 
should constitute a legal Cell centralising all cases to decide whether appeal 
should be filed-Fixing responsibility of officers for delay. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 227 of 
1992 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.90 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Appeal from Original Order No. T. 3734 of 1986. 
H 
S. Muralidhar and Rathin Das for Appellants in C.A. No. 227/92. 
850 
\ 
,. 
NRIP AT! GHOSHAL v. PREMi\ VAT! KAPUR 
851 
Parveen Swamp, Ms. A. Subhashini, NP, for Union of India in C.A. A 
No. 3790/92. 
A:K. Ganguli, Parag P. Tripathi, Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Sumita Muk-
herjee, lndeevar Goodwill and Abha R. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Substitution allowed. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division 
Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated July, 31, 1990 made in Appeal 
from Original Order No. T.3734/86. 
B 
c 
The undisputed facts arc that the premises bearing No. 7, Chappel 
Road, Haslings, Calcutta \Vas requisitioned on Novcn1ber 29, 1971 under D 
Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Pren1ises Requisition and Control (Tem-
pon1ry Provisions) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Bengal Act') due to 
Bangladesh war. The Indian N.avy had taken possession thereof and has 
remained in possession of the said prcn1ises. Subsequently, it \VOtild appear, 
the respondents had filed Matter No. 1295179 in the Calcutta High Court 
questioning the legality of the requisition. It would appear that proceedings 
were initiated as early as in 1975 for acquisition of the property and the 
correspondence between various Departments \Vas going on. Notification 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1of1984) (for short, 
the 'Act') was published on November 26, 1981. Enquiry under Section 5-A 
E 
was conducted. Thereafter, declaration under Section (, was published on F 
November 25, 1982. The writ petition pending in the High Court came up 
for hearing. A learned single judge by his order dated April 8, 1983 had 
held that though there was no public purpose for requisition under the 
Bengal Act, since the acquisition \Vas initiated under the Act, four months' 
time ;vas granted for completing the award enquiry and to pass the award; G 
in case of default, he directed the appellants to hand over possession of 
the premises to the respondents. In the meanwhile, the acquisition 
proceedings were completed by making award on September 21, 1983. 
Notice under Section 12 was issued to the respondents on Septen1ber 23, 
1983. Thus the acquisition under the Act had become final. An oral\._ 
application came to be made before the learned Judge for extension of H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
time on July 22, 1983 since the time was to expire on August 8, 1983. But 
the learned Judge declined lo extend the time by his order dated August 
2, 1983. Since the possession was not delivered, the respondents had filed 
another writ petit

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