KAMINI KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be owners of a portion of plot No. 492 mouza Jadavpur, P.S. Tollygunge. The Additional Collector, Estate Acquisition, by a Memo dated 23rd December, 1971 informed the petitioners that 17th January, 1972 had been fixed for hearing of an application filed by Jagannath Das for acquisition and settlement of the said homestead land in terms of West Bengal Acquisition and Settlement of Homestead Land Act, 1969. The petitioners have challenged in this Rule that the said Act was ultra vires Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) During the pendency of this Rule, clause (f) of Article 19(1) and Article 31 were deleted by the Constitution (fortyfourth Amendment) Act, 1973. 'Right to Property' has ceased to be a 'Fundamental Right' within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution and now Article 300A lays down that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the petitioners, however, is right in his submission that the above deletions of clause (f) of Article 19(1) and of Article 31 were prospectively made. Therefore, it is still open to the petitioners to urge that at the date of the enactment of the West Bengal Acquisition and Settlement of Homestead Land Act, the West Bengal State Legislature had no legislative competence to enact law inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the rights enumerated in Pt. III of the Constitution.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the West Bengal Acquisition and Settlement of Homestead Land Act, 1969, inter-alia, provides for acquisition of land on payment of compensation far less than that payable under other laws for compulsory acquisition of lands to 'persons interested'. Secondly, Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the purpose for which land may be acquired under the aforesaid Act XV of 1969 is not a public purpose within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 31. Therefore, in substance, Mr. Bhattacharyya's submission is that the aforesaid law was in contravention of Article 31(2) of the Constitution and therefore the same was void abinitio.