LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. DURGA PADA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 143 to 147 of 1970, all five of which have been filed by certificates granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution by the High Court of Calcutta and are directed against its common judgment dated the 17th February, 1967 accepting five Letters Patent Appeals and, in reversal of the judgment of a learned single Judge, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan and the State of West Bengal to cancel or withdraw a notification dated November 3, 1961 and another containing a declaration dated June 20, 1963 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively.

(2.) The facts leading to the litigation covered by the appeals before us may be briefly stated. On February 12, 1960 a notification (later in this judgment called the first notification) was issued by the Government of West Bengal under Section 4 of the Act stating that a piece of land delineated in the plan available in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Burdwan, as well as in that of the Director of M/s. Sen Raleigh Industries India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at Kanyapur in District Burdwan was likely to be needed for a public purpose (not being a purpose of the Union), namely, for expansion of the factory of the Company and "for construction of quarters for its workers and staff and for providing other amenities directly connected therewith, such as school, playgrounds, hospitals, markets, police out-posts, etc., in the villages of Sarakdih, Nadiha, Garui, Hatgaruy and Panchgachhia, jurisdiction Lists Nos. 1, 2, 3, 42/3 and 34 respectively, Police Stations Asansol and Barabani, Pargana Shergarh, District Burdwan...." at the expense of the Company. An area totalling 17.20 acres and belonging to the respondents was included in the land covered by the notification. The respondents preferred objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A of the Act to the effect that the land was not acquired for any public purpose, that the real purpose was to benefit the Company and that the first notification was a fraudulent exercise of the power conferred by the Act on the State Government. A fresh notification (second notification for short) under Section 4 of the Act was issued on November 3, 1961 in respect of land measuring 146.90 acres which was the same land as was covered by the first notification, except for a small area. The second notification stated that the land was likely "to be needed for a public purpose, not being a purpose of the Union, namely, for industrial development at Asansol in the villages of Sarakdih, Nadiha, Garui, Hatgaruy and Panchgachhia, jurisdiction Lists Nos. 1, 2, 3, 78 and 34 respectively, Police Stations Asansol and Barabani, Pargana Shergarh, District Burdwan...... at public expense." The area of 17.20 acres mentioned above was included in the land covered by the second notification also and the respondents filed objections under Section 5A of the Act over again contending that although the ostensible purpose of the acquisition was a public purpose, the land was really sought to be acquired for a private purpose, i.e., for the benefit of the Company. The first notification was cancelled by an order dated the 26th April, 1962 and on the 20th June, 1963, the impugned notification containing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act (the third notification for brevity) was made. About three months later the respondents were served with notices under Section 9 of the Act informing them that the State Government was taking steps to secure possession of the acquired lands and that they could submit their claims for compensation. Further representatives were made by the respondents in an effort to have the acquisition proceedings dropped but without success and it was then that each one of them filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for the issuance of a writ which was ultimately granted to them by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The grounds of challenge taken in all the petitions were identical and were to the following effect;