STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SURENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated May 3, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court quashing the acquisition proceedings taken as also the notification made by the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of the lands in dispute which comprised .73 acres in village Kanpura, P. S. Dum Dum.

(2.) Although the case had a rather chequered career and was preceded by a full-fledged litigation starting from the trial court and ending with the High Court regarding the question of title, we are not, however, concerned with the past history in view of the short point on the bais of which the appeal was decided by the Division Bench of the High Court. The case of the Government was that on December 16, 1949, respondent No. 2 known as Calcutta Mineral Supply Company having its office at 31, Jackson Lane. Calcutta, applied to the Collector for acquiring the land in question in order to extend its business. The company was carrying on the business of manufacturing sodium silicate, plaster of paris, etc., which were formerly imported on a very large scale from foreign countries. The manufactured goods of the company are widely used all over India saving considerable foreign exchange which otherwise would have had to be spent in importing these materials. The company pleaded that it wanted to extend its business and improve the standards of its manufacture but for want of space for big underground storage tanks, the company was seriously handicapped. The company, therefore, prayed that the lands in dispute which were contiguous to the lands on which the existing factory of the company stood was best suited for this purpose and hence the Collector was requested to acquire the lands for public purpose. Consequent to the application, an agreement was executed between the Government and the company on the 29th of November 1954. On December 9, 1954, a notification under S. 6 of the Act was published and the first respondent filed his objection which was rejected and was followed by a notification under S. 9 of the Act. After the land acquisition proceedings were complete a writ petition was filed by the first respondent before the High Court on January 14, 1957 which was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court and therefore the first respondent filed an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court on February 21, 1957. While the appeal was pending before the High Court the Collector made an Award dated 14-10-1957 and after taking possession from the owners of the land, delivered the same to the company-respondent No.2 on October 23, 1957. The first respondent filed an application for permission to urge additional grounds before the High Court which was permitted and ultimately the Division Bench of the High Court by the order under appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the land acquisition proceedings taken under the Art. Hence, this appeal before this Court after getting a certificate from the High Court.

(3.) The only point that has been canvassed before us by counsel for the parties is as to whether or not the acquisition of the land in dispute was valid in law. The appellant contended that in view of the amendment of Section 40 by Act No. 31 of 1962, acquisition of land for the purpose of the company was validated and all acquisition made before the amendment were validated retrospectively provided certain conditions laid down under S.7 of the Amending Act were fulfilled.