LexTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus NABA KUMAR SEAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
August 29. 368 SUPH,EME COURT REPORTS [1 !!_61] --THE 8'l'A'l'E OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS v. NABA KUMAR 8EAL. (B. l''. Sr~HA, C. J., J. L.- KAPUR, :J?. B. OAJENDRAGADKAH, K. ·sunn,-1- RAo and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.) Acq11isitio11 of lmul-Scttlcment of immigrants- Dcvelupmcnt schc11ic-lj necessary in. cases of acquisition u11dt.:~.c1ncrgcncy-- Absc11cc of clc11elopmc11t scheme-If infringes ftmdamciital rights--- W est Bengal Devclupmcnt and Planning Act, I948 (21 of I948), s. 7-Consljt11tion of India, Arts._r4, r9(I)(j), .11(2). By a notification-under s. 4 of the West Bengal Land Deve- lopment and Planning Act, r948, the Government declared that certain plots of land belonging to the respondent were needed for . the settlement of immigrants from East Pakistan and for improv- ing living conditions in the locality. Thereafter a second notifica- tion was issued by the Govern.men! under s. 6 read with s. 7 of the Act declaring that the,p1ots covered by the previous notifi- cation \Vere_ needed for 'the same yurpose as stated therein. When the Government started to erect structures on the land thus acquired the respondent moved the High Court under Art. 22(i of the Constituti9n challenging the vires of the Act and impugning the legality/of the proceedings taken under the Act. The petition \vas heard by a judge of the High ·Court sit- ting sing\y who negatived all the contentions of the petitioner and discharged the rule. On appeal by the respondent under the Lette,rs Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Act- did not inf(inge the provisions of Arts. r9(1)(!) and. :; 1(2) of the Constitution. The ·High Court further held .that it was incumbent on the State Government tq frame -a (levelop- ment scheme after possession of the land had been taken even though the Government was entitled to deal with the land on an pmergencY. basis under s. 7 of _the Act, which runs thus:--- · 11 In cases of urgency, if in· respect of 3.ny not'ific<l area the State Government is satisfied that the preparation ol a· uevelopmenl scheme is likely to be delayed, the State Govern- 1nent may, at any time·, n1ake a declaration under~· 6, jn rcs- _pect "of sudi notified area or ahy part thereof though n'o dc_ve- lopmcnt scheme has either been prepared or sanctioned under s. 5 ". . The High Cour.t allbweg th_c respondent's appeal and cJircc_l- c<l a \\'fit of mandamus to issue to the Govcrnznent re~iring them to proceed' to frame a development scbeme in tqins of the Act. 6n appeal uy the State of West Bengal on a certifi- cate granted by the High Court, 1 S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 369 Held, that the High Court was in error in issuing the r960 mandamus against the appellants. Section 7 of the Act com- pletely dispensed with the statutory nece<Sity of preparing a The State of scheme of clevelop1nent as envisaged in s. 5 of the Act in cases J'Vest Bengal where the Government had taken the decision that it was &- Others necessary to proceed further \vith the acquisition proceedings v. \Vithout waiting for a developmen.t sche1ne. i.Vaba Kumar Seal No discrimination was implicit in the provisions of s. 7 of the Act and no fundamental right of the appellant was infring- ed either unrler Art. q or Arts. r9(r)(f) and 31(2) of the Con- stitution. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 212/55. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated July 7, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 157 of 1952, arising out of the ,Judgment and Decree dated March 28, 1952, of t.he said High Court in Civil Rule No. 1409 of 1951. B. Sen and P. K. Bose for the appellants. P. K. Ghosh for the respondent. S. C. Mazumdar for the Intervener (Gopalpur Land Development Society, Ltd.). 1960. August 29. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C. J.-The only substantial question that Sinha c. 1. arises for determination in this appeal, on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court under Art. 133 (l)(c) of the Constitution, is whether the Government of West .Bengal was bound to frame a development scheme under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 21of1948, which here- inafter will be referred to as the Act, when it exercised its power of emergency under s. 7 of the Act. The facts of this case lie within a very narrow com- pass and are as follows : The respondent was the owner of about 18 bighas of land in a certa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.