COLLECTORS OF 24 PARGANAS Vs. LALIT MOHAN MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, by certificate, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing the Judgment of a learned single Judge. The matter relates to land acquisition proceedings. The Collector of 24 Parganas and others are the appellants.

(2.) Under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1948) (for short, the Act), a notification dated March 28, 1957 was issued in relation to property, being C. S. Plots Nos. 84 and 86, belonging to the respondents. Declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, dated January 4, 1962, followed. The earlier notification stated that the above plots along with certain other plots were likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. for the resettlement of immigrants who have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their control. The area involved in the proceedings in 3.85 acres, in extent. It appears that the respondents in this case; the owner of the land, discovered after receipt of notice of acquisition, on inspection of records at the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Alipore, that the land was required not for the purpose mentioned in the notification but for the Society of Experimental Medical Science (India) for construction of a hospital for crippled children at the expenses of the said Society. They then applied for the copies of the two letters which contained this disclosure. Finding that the real purpose of acquisition is different, from the one made in the notification, they addressed a letter to the Land. Acquisition Authorities requesting them to cancel the notification and the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were made under colourable exercise of powers. There was no response. Hence they moved the Calcutta High Court by Writ Petition CR No. 361(W) of 1964, to quash the notification and the subsequent proceedings, on the ground that the notification and the acquisition proceedings were mala fide, beyond the powers conferred by the Act and in fraud of those powers.

(3.) The writ petition first came up before a learned single Judge of the High Court. He held that the challenge to the notification was hopelessly barred by time. The notification under Section 4 was published on 28-3-1957 and the succeeding declaration under Section 6 on 4th January, 1962. The writ petition was filed only on 26-3-1964 after lapse of more than two years and two months. Since the respondents did not give any satisfactory explanation for this delay the learned single Judge felt that the discretionary powers under Article 226 should not be exercised in their favour. The learned single Judge also repelled the contention based on the plea that the acquisition proceedings were mala fide and in fraud or in excess of the powers under the Act.