SAMBU NATH GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case challenged the validity of the order of requisition No.34/83 dated 17-8-83 and notice No.413 dated 1-9-83 in respect of premises No.44, Bhupen Bose Avenue Calcutta as also memo No.33-83 Reqn. dated 17-8-83 and notice No.421 dated 1-9-83 in respect of premises No.12, Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta. By the requisition order dated 17-8-83 both the premises were requisitioned under sub-sec.(1) of S.3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 alleging that the said premises were not for public purpose. The said order of requisition was related with two premises, namely 44, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta and 12, Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta.

(2.) The petitioners are the joint owners of premises Nos.42 and 44, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta and 12, Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta. It is stated that the premises Nos.42 and 44, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta and 12, Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta were in the possession of the petitioners who are the owners thereof. It is stated that the petitioners used to let out the said premises regularly for the purpose of holding marriage, religious and other functions at different dates and regularly such functions held there and against that the petitioners get amounts thereof. It is stated that the said premises is regularly letting out for holding various ceremonies and for that purpose the petitioners engaged a durwan who is engaged for the possession of the same and various materials and including other materials for electrical fittings, fixtures, fans and lights and also the materials of the caterers and decorators who were M/s. N.C.Das and Co. 82A, Shyambazar Street, Venus Decorators and Caterers, 11, Amritalal Bose Street and M/s. Mitra Decorators, 4, Raja Naba Krishna Street, Calcutta. It is stated that the premises No.44, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta is already under order of acquisition for the purpose of Metro Railways Authorities through the Land Acquisition Collector and that the possession whereof had not been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector for the Metro Railway and the petitioners stated that they are in possession of 44, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta. The case of the petitioner is that on 3/09/1983 at about 10.30 a.m. the officer from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector came to the premises No.44, Bhupen Bose Avenue and 12, Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta with requisition notices and possession notices being No.34/83 Reqn. dated 17/08/1983 issued by the First Land Acquisition Collector on 1/09/1983. Functions were going on at that premises. When the functions were going on the said premises, the said officers left the premises leaving the notices and without obtaining any signature from the petitioners. On the same date the officers of the Land Acquisition Collector went to the premises No.12. Sachin Mitra Lane, Calcutta along with notice of requisition where also similar function was going on that date and the said officers, left the place leaving the order of requisition without obtaining any signature from the petitioners. From the said notice it appears that the said notices have been issued in the name of Chandi Charan Ghose and Chandra Nath Ghose who were long dead and their heirs namely the petitioners are the owners of the premises in question as heirs and legal representatives of those deceased persons. It is stated that the said order of requisition and the notices were bad and the respondents failed to give mandatory notice of 10 clear days to the owners and occupiers as required under S.4(1) of the said Act for vacating the said premises. The said notices of requisition were stated to be illegal on the ground that the same had left on the said premises on 3/09/1983 when the staff of the Land Acquisition Collector came to take possession and went back without taking any possession. There had been no service of the said notices at all to the owners and occupiers of the said premises. It is further stated that since the premises No.44, Bhupen Bose Avenue was under order of requisition for the Metro Railway Authorities, as such the same cannot be requisitioned for any other purposes. Thereafter the petitioners made representation before the Minister-in-charge, Land and Land Revenue Department but no possession has been taken on the basis of the said representation. The petitioners stated that the names of the contractors whose goods are lying in the said premises, are in para 15 of the petition.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said order of requisition was illegal and bad in law relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector reported in AIR 1984 SC 1707, wherein Supreme Court held that where the property is required for a permanent purposes, the State cannot be requisitioned under the provision of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 (referred to as the said Act). In that case it was held that - "The State has the power both of requisition as well as acquisition subject to one condition, i.e. the property acquired or requisitioned must be for public purpose. The two concepts are different, in one title passes to the acquiring authority, in the other title remains with the owner, the possession goes to the requisitioning authority. Normally, the expression 'requisition' is taking possession of the property for a limited period in contradistinction to 'acquisition'.