SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our order dated March 10, 1970, we stated that we will give our reasons later for rejecting the points raised before us. We now proceed to give those reasons.

(2.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta (Bose, C. J., and Mitra, J.) dismissing the appeal of Sachindra Mohan Nandy and Jnanendra Mohan Nandy, now appellants before us against the judgment of Mukherjee, J. discharging the rule obtained by the appellants under Art 226 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to state the relevant facts.

(3.) On October 9, 1960 and October 10, 1960, the Collector of Hoogly made two orders under S. 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act. The Collector purported to requisition land belonging to the appellants for certain public purposes. He had issued the orders in exercise of the powers which had been conferred upon him by notification No 3775-L A dated May, 11, 1948, published in the Calcutta Gazette. Part I, on May 27, 1948. This notification had authorised the Collector to exercise the powers under S. 3 (1) of the Acquisition Act. When this notification was passed Chandernagore, where the requisitioned land is situate, was not part of West Bengal and it is on this fact that one argument, shortly to be mentioned, rests