LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus SURENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • .. J.- 783 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. v. SURENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA AND ANR. April 24, 1980 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 31 of 1962, Sec- tion 40(aa)-lnterpre'ilation of Section 40(aa) Gnd also Section 7 of the Amending Act of 1962-Acquisition of land for company engaged in industry or werk ·which is for public purpose is valid and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution-Section 44B of the Act is prospective and does not relate to Qcquisitiol'I. Respondent 2 known as Calcutta Mineral Supply Company having its office at 31, Jack.son Lane, Calcutta was carrying on the businesa of manufacturl.Oi sodium silicate, plaster of paris etc., which were formerly imported on a very large scale from foreign countries. The manufactured goods of the Company are widely used all over India saving considerable foreign exchange which otherwise would have had to be spent in importing these materials. With a view tO extend its business and i\(lprove the standard of its manufacture but tor waat of space for big underground storage tanks, the Company was handi""J>ped, the Company applied to the Collector for acquiring for public purpoee, the lands in dispute which were contiguous to the lands on which the existing factory of the company stood was best suited. Consequent to the application :.in agreement was executed between the Government and the Compaliy on the 29th of November 1954. On December 9, 1954, a notifica- tion under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published and the first respondent filed his objection which was rejected and was foJJowed by a ~otification under section 9 of the Act. After, the land acquisition proceedings were complete a writ petition was filed by the first respondent before tlte High Court on January 14, 1957 which was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court and therefore the first respondent filed an "Ppeal to the Division Bench of tlte High Court on Felml&"y 21, 1957. While the appeal was pending before the High Court tlte Collector made an Award dated 14-10-1957 and after taking possession from the owners of the land, delivered the same to the company-respondent No. 2 on October 22. 1957. The first respondent filed an application for per- mission to urge additional grounds before the High Court which was per- mitted and ultimately the Division Bench of the High Court by the order under appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the Land acquisition proceed- ings taken under the Act. Hence, this appeal before this Court after getting a certilieate from the High Court. Allowing the appeal by certificate. tlte Court A B c D E F G HEW: I. Analysing tlte ratio of the decision of this Court in (Second) H R. Li Arora v. State of U.P., [1964] 6 S.C.R. and followed in Himalayan 1'iles & Marbles v. Francis Victor Continho (dead) by I.rs .. [1980] 3 S.C.R. 235, 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19 80] 3 S.C.lt. A the following conditions must be satisfied before an acquisition made prior to July 20, 1962 could be said to be constitutionally valid- B c (a) that the acquisition bad taken place before July 20, 1962, the date 'vhen the Amending Act came into force; (b) that the said acquisition should have been fully compleled in that property said to have been acquired had vested absolutely in the Government; ( c) that the acquisition was made for purposes mentioned in clause ( aa) of the amended clause added to s. 40; (d) that if these conditions were satisfied, then any acquisitioo pro- ceeding, order, agreement or action in connection with much acquisition would be deemed to have. been valid as if the arnooded provisions were in force at the time when the acquisition was made. [788 E-0] Tl>o facts of the present case squarely fall within the ambit of the coodi- tions laid down by section 7 of the Amending Act and hence the cballenge on the ground of the constitutional validity of the acquisition must neceeuri- D ly fail. Tl>o proceedings for acquisition were started long before July 20, 1962 that is, as early as December 9, 1?54 when notification under sec- tion 6 of the Act was issued. After inviting objections an Award was made by the Collector on October 14, 1957 and after the property in dispute fully rested in the Government, the Collector then delivered the same to the Company-respondent 2 on October 22, 1957. [789 A-BJ '.E Himalayan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.