WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. versus BRIJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. 
v. 
BRIJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition : 
West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948--Section 
C 3(2)-West Bengal Requisition &Acquisition Rules, 1948-0rderfor requisi-
tion of land-Service of order of the State Govemment on a person recorded 
as owner in Record of Rights though he had already sold the land to another 
person prior to the requisition b!ft the name of person not yet entered in 
Record of Rights despite his applying for mutation-Held, service of order 
valid. 
D 
Sections 3( 1) and 4 read with West Bengal Housing Board Act·-Public 
purpose for acquisition-Requisition and subsequent acquisition of land for · 
housing scheme for lower income and middle income groups of 
people-Held, requisition/acquisition was for a public purpose. 
E 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
F 
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 195~Section So-Record of 
Right~~Held, Collector is not obliged to make a roving enqµily about owner-
ship of the land. 
Town Planning : 
West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972:-Sections 2(12A), 17, 27A & 
29-Public pwpose-Eami11g of profits-Joi;1t sectors-Held, Cowts muo·t 
shake off the myth that public pwpose is seryed only if 110 profit is eamed. 
·• 
. 
G 
P1ice fixation---Eaming of reasonable profits by joint sector company 
engaged i11 building houses-Held, does not mitigate agai11st the public pur-
pose behind the requisition or acquisition. 
Judicial Review : 
H 
lnterference with Policy matter--Requisition/acquisition of ldnd for 
22 
t 
.. 
-
WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD v. B.P. GUPTA 
23 
public purpose of providing houses to homeless-{Jn/ess action is unconstitu-
A 
tional or contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary, irrational, or in abuse 
of power, Court will not inte1fere with the policy matter. 
Lands purchased by the respondents were shown in the name of the 
erstwhile owner in the Record of Rights despite the application for muta-
tion in the name of the respondents. Therefore, order of requisition was B 
served on the erstwhile {)wner under the Act. Subsequently, the lands were 
acquired for constructing houses in urban areas mainly for lower income 
and middle income groups of people. In view of shortage of resources, the 
State constituted Housing Board under the provisions of the Housing 
Board Act, to meet the challenge of providing houses to the people falling C 
in low and middle income groups. However the Housing Board was unable 
to meet the challenge. The Housing Board Act was, therefore, amended to 
bring in the concept of joint ventures to tap the resources of the privat~ 
sector. Thus a joint venture was created for the same. 
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that service of order D 
of requisition was not served on them and that there was no public purpose 
in requisitioning and acquiring the lands. 
On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the State that any 
scheme to solve the housing would promote a public purpose and that such E 
a scheme need not be undertaken by the State directly but may well be 
implemented through a joint sector company under the supervision, con-
trol and guidance of the State. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions of service of notice stood complied when 
notices were served on the persons recorded as owners in the Record of 
Rights. Record of Rights is a statutory document maintained by the 
prescribed authority under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms 
F 
Act and it is a notice to the public at large as to who are the owners of the 
land in the records of the authorities. Section 3 of the W.B. Land Reforms G 
Af:t, oyerrides other laws if there is anything inconsistent with what is 
stated in the Act. Of course, the Collector could have asked for a report 
of the prescribed authority concerned if any application for mutation of 
the land was pending with him. But that would be expecting too much from 
the Collector. It is no part of the duty of the Collector to make a roving H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2S.C.R. 
A inquiry into ownership of the persons. [30-D-E; 31-A-B] 
B 
c 
Winky Dilawaii v. Anuitsar Improvement Tiust, [1996) 11 SCC 644; 
Sureshchandra C. Mehta v. State of Kamataka, [1994) Supp. 2 SCC 511, 
relied on. 
2. It is not possible to accept the contention that the purpose for 
which the requisition had been made was not a public purpose within the 
Act or that t

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