NETAI BAG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Claiming to be the champions to the cause of vegetarians, the Appellant Nos. 5 and 6 along with the heirs of the erstwhile land owners, Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 herein, moved the High Court by way of a writ petition, filed in public interest with prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from using or utilising the acquired lands for the purposes other than the one for which the acquisition was made. It was further prayed that directions be issued to give back the lands in question to the erstwhile land owners or to sell the land by public auction only for the public purpose. Prayer for the issuance of writ of prohibition was also made for restraining the respondents to use the land for slaughter house or abattoir by respondent No. 6. Pending adjudication of the main petition an injunction was prayed for restraining the respondents from using or utilising any part or portion of land in question for any slaughter house/abattoir and restraining the respondent No. 4 from allowing respondent No. 5 to establish or operate any slaughter house/abattoir on the land in question. Vide order dated 25-5-1988, the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge as dismissed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that by notification dated 22nd August, 1961 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of West Bengal acquired land measuring 151.18 acres for a public purpose, namely, construction of Mourigram-Dankuni Link Project of South-Eastern Railways. After completion of the project, the Railways surrendered the surplus land measuring 77.36 acres to the State Government on 7-7-1972. On 12-5-1973, the State Government handed over the possession of 74.21 acres of the surplus land to animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, now Animal Resource Development Department. The West Bengal Livestock Processing Development Corporation was authorised to set up the Mourigram Abattoir Project on this land. In furtherance of the establishment of abattoir, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between India and Australia by which the Australian Development Assistance Bureau agreed to provide assistance for the establishment of an abattoir, in the year 1977. The consultants of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau prepared a detailed three-volume Feasibility Report stating therein that the Mourigram Project was feasible. By that time the State Government had established another abattoir project at Durgapur which, after commissioning, was running into losses. The appellants apprehended that the State Government, in collusion with some outsiders, was negotiating to sell out and to transfer the land in fiduciary manner exclusively for a profit purpose allegedly to defraud and mislead the people of the State. The private party referred to was Al-Kabeer, a Dubai based concern for the purposes of establishing a slaughter house/abattoir. Some correspondence ensued between the appellants and the respondents 1 to 4. It was contended that the respondents were encroaching upon the Constitutional Rights of the appellants by establishing a slaughter house/abattoir on the land acquired for a specified public purpose. It was submitted that after the completion of the project, the excess land should have been transferred to the land owners or sold in public auction but could not be utilised for any private purpose particularly for the establishment of a slaughter house/abattoir. The petitioners alleged that the establishment of the slaughter house/abattoir was not in conformity with List III, Entry 17 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The action was further alleged to be contrary to List III Entry 17(B) and violative of the mandate of Arts. 31(2), 48, 48A, 49 and 51 of the Constitution. The delay in filing writ petition was sought to be explained on the ground that respondents had allegedly kept the deal a guarded secret.