STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SAMARENDRA NATH PAUL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SAMARENDRA NATH PAUL AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition : 
West Be11gal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 194~Sectio11 
C 3-Requisitio11 of la11d for housi11g project-No allegatio11 that the power 
exercised by the State was mala fide or outside the scope of the Act-Held, 
order of requisitio11 11ot bad i11 law. 
West Be11gal (Requisitio11 a11d Acquisitio11) Rules-Rule 3(c) & 
(d)--Service of Order of requisition u11der Section 3(1)--Service by way of 
D affzxatiol!-Held, valid.-Se11ding the order under certificate of posting-Held, 
under Rule 3(d) order is to be served by registered post with acknowledgme11t 
due. 
Co11stitutio11 of India-Arts. 226 and 32-Scope of-Held, not to set 
aside the orders of the autho1ities on some supposed grounds when facts 
E clearly speak for themselves a11d the authorities act within the scope of their 
power-Judicial review. 
The plots of land belonging to the Respondents were sought to be 
acquired for which notice was served by way of affixation on a conspicuous 
part of the land as well as in the Collector's office. The same was chal-
F 
lenged before the High Court which directed the State to issue fresh notice. 
When fresh notice was issued by the State, it was again challenged before 
the High Court on the ground that no notice had been served on the 
respondents as required under the Act and the Rules before taking over 
the possession, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. On appeal, the 
G Division Bench set aside the order of requisition and directed restoration 
of possession of the land to the respondents. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD. : 1. Order under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West 
H Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act 1948 can be served by any 
160 
STATE v. S.N.PAUL(D.P. WADHWA,J.) 
161 
method prescribed in Rule 3 of the West Bengal (Requisition & Acquisi· A 
tion) Rules. The State in its affidavit which is based on records, had 
categorically stated that copy of the order was served on the respondents. 
By affixing a copy thereof on a conspicuous part of the land in question 
and in the Collector's office as well, it could not be disputed that clause 
( d) of Rule 3 was not complied in toto. This, of course, according to the B 
State, was in addition to the orders having been sent under certificate of 
posting. However, sending the order under certificate of posting is mean· 
ingless when the rule requires that the order is to be served by registered 
post with acknowledgement due. [167-F·H] 
2. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is acute paucity of C 
accommodation both in urban and rural areas in the country. It is not the 
case of the respondents that the power of requisition exercised by the State 
was mala fide or outside the purview of the Act. It was not thought that 
the court in exercise of its constitutional powers of judicial review should 
hasten to set aside the order of the authorities on some supposed grounds 
when the facts clearly speak for themselves and the authorities act within D 
the scope of their powers as conferred upon them by law. [170-D-F] 
West Bengal Housing Board v. Bhawar Lal Mundhra & Ors., [1997] 
Supplementary 2 SCR, West Bengal Housing Board v. Brijendra Prasad 
Gupta & Ors., [1997] Supplementary 2 SCR, relied on. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 
1997 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.96 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A. No. 861of1989 
F 
V.R. Reddy, Additional So/icitor General, T.C. Ray, Rajesh Srivas-
tava, P. Basu and H.K. Puri, for the Appellants. 
N.K. Poddar, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and Ms. Zoya Hadke for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Special Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 3, 1996 of H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court allowing the writ petition of the 
respondents and thus setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge 
dated July 13, 1988 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The respon-
dents, it would appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge, had 
challenged the requisition of land measuring 0.57 acres falling in plot nos. 
B 1787 and 1788 Mouza Monoharpur, P.S. Chanditala, District Hooghly, in 
the State of West Bengal by order dated May 9, 1984 of the Collector
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.