STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RAM GOPAL KHAUDELWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated Aug. 13, 1970 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court Howrah in Miscellaneous Case No. 68 of 1969 arising out of a reference made by the collector, Howrah. The said cate arises out of an acquisition made at the instance of the Howrah Improvement Trust in accordance with the provisions of the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956.

(2.) We are in respectful agreement with the decision of Murari Mohan Dutt and Dhires Chandra Chakravorti, JJ. in F.A 545 of 1971 disposed of on Dec. 18, 1978 (since reported in (1) 1980(2) CLJ 352) that the learned Additional D.strict Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the said Miscellaneous Case. The Board under clause.(ii) of Sec. 67 of the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956 had acquired tho land in question in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956. We understand that no Tribunal has been yet constituted under section 69 of the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956. But the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 78 of the said Act has directed that the Tribunal constituted under section 70 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 shall be performing the (unctions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta shall, in addition to the duties assigned to it under the said Act, perform the functions of the Court, in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Howrah.

(3.) Schedule I of the Howrah Improvement Act read with section 70 of the said Act has set out the modifications of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to the acquisition of land under the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956. In view of the above provisions, the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was required to make a reference not to the Court but to the Tribunal constituted under section 69 as laid down under Sec. 78 of the Howrah Improvement Act, 1956. In the instant case, the reference by the Collector to the learned Additional District Judge Howrah was accordingly without jurisdiction, being ultra vires the provisions of the Howrah Improvement Act as modified by the former Act. For the same reason, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, are without jurisdiction.