WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD versus BHAWAN LAL MUNDHRA AND ORS .

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
BRA WAN LAL MUNDHRA AND ORS . 
. JULY 9, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition : 
West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-Sections 
C 3 & 4-West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules-Rule 3-Requisi-
tion of land-Notice found to have been duly served by means of affIXation 
as required under Section 3(2) read with Rule 3(d) before taking over posses-
sio1t--Held, Notice was properly served. 
Land.Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4--l'ublic purpose-Requisition 
D of land for the purpose of constntction of houses for weaker sections of society 
or for constmction of approach road in the housing project, provision for 
market place, doctor's clinic, drainage etc.-Held, cannot be said that the land 
was not requisitioned and subsequently acquired for the public purpose. 
E 
Appellant State wanted to acquire lands belonging to the respon-
dents for which notice requiring the lands were served by the process 
server by means of affixation. Subsequently the land was acquired by the 
State, but the order was quashed by the High Court on the ground that 
there was no proper service of notice. However, status quo was maintained. 
As per the order of the High Court, fresh notice was served on the 
F respondents which was again challenged before the High Court on three 
grounds, namely, (i) that no notice was served prior to taking over posses· 
sion of the land; (ii) that there was total non-application of mind on the 
part of the Collector in issuing the requisitioning notice and (iii) that the 
purpose was not a public purpose. The Single Judge of the High Court 
G allowed the Writ Petition of the respondents. It was confirmed by the 
Division Bench. Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. This Court is unable to concur with the view taken by the 
High Court that notice had not been properly served or that there was no 
application of mind on the part of the Collector in requisitioning the land 
H or that the purpose for which the requisition was made was not a public 
172 
•· 
...
WESTBENGALHOUSINGBOARD v. B.L.MUNDHRA[D.P.WADHWA,J.) 173 
purpose. Construction of approach road in the housing project, provision A 
for market complex, doctor's clinic, drainage etc., form part of the housing 
project and cannot be considered in isolation. That is the public purpose 
for which the land in question had been requisitioned, a purpose which is 
a public purpose. (182-G-H; 183-A-B] 
West Bengal Housing Board etc. v~ Brijendra Prasad Gupta & Ors., B 
[1997] Suppl. 2 SCR, decided on July 9, 1997, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4388 of 
1997 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.96 of the Calcutta High C 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1507 of 1994. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, D.P. Gupta, T.C. Ray, Dr. 
Shankar Ghose, N.K. Poddar, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, P. Basu, 
H.K. Puri, M.C. Dhingra, Ms. Laxtni Arvind, Sanjay Bansal, G.K. Bansal, D 
Arvind Kumar, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and Ms. Zoya Radke for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Special leave granted. 
E 
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 7, 1996 of a 
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which Judgment was passed in 
appeal against the judgment dated April 18, 1994 of the learned Single 
Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent. This was however 
the second round of litigation between the parties. 
F 
The first respondent who was the petitioner sought quashing of the 
earlier order dated December 21, 1981 passed by the Collector and Addi-
tional District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal 
Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) requisi- G 
tioning 0.63 acres of land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 1790, Mouza 
Monoharpur, J.L. No. 98 in the district of Hooghly. In terms of this order 
the possession of the land was taken over on January 7, 1982. As a matter 
of fact the order of requisition pertained to 21.41 acres of land of various 
plot numbers which included the plot of the petitioner. The report of the 
process server shows that the notice requisitioning the land was served by H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A means of affixation with seal and the signatures of witnesses, by going to 
the places mentioned in the order requisitioning the land. The petitioner 
filed the writ petition in the C

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