STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DAULAT SINGH SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in a writ proceeding being C.R. No.8407(W) of 1987. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge has held that the impugned action of requisition and/or acquisition of premises No.4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta is illegal and void. The learned trial Judge quashed the order of requisition being No.8/86/II/48 dated 31/05/1986 (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) along with order dated 16/08/1986 passed under S.4 of the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948).

(2.) The relevant facts concerning the writ petition and the instant appeal are set out hereunder. Premises No.4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta was requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules. It appears that after the requisition, the ground floor was used as the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control) and the first floor was used as the residential quarter of the said Deputy Commissioner. On 28/12/1947, the said property was de-requisitioned and after such de-requisition the Government became direct tenant under the then owners at a rental of Rs. 693.00 per month. On 30th January, 1959, the said premises was requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 and the rent compensation was fixed at Rs. 777.00 per month. In 1984, the writ petitioners being the owners of the said premises challenged the legality and validity of the said order of requisition and continuance of such requisition over a long stretch of time. Such writ proceeding was numbered as Matter No.872 of 1984. After a contested hearing the said writ proceeding was disposed of by this Court and the learned single Judge disposing of the said writ petition was of the view that when it was intended by the Government to use the requisitioned premises permanently or for a very long period, there was no justification to keep the premises under requisition for such a long time. If the premises was really required for a public purpose, the Government should have acquired the same under the appropriate Act. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge quashed the order of requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, but allowed the continuance of requisition of the covered area for six months and further directed that after six months the said requisition would stand quashed. If the State Government intended to keep possession of the premises in question, the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act should be initiated within the said period and if such acquisition proceeding is not initiated, possession was to be delivered to the petitioners. So far as the garden land, that is, the uncovered portion of the premises is concerned, the learned Judge quashed the requisition in respect of such portion inter alia on the finding that the said portion was not required for public purpose. It appears that the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta passed an order of de-requisition of the garden land on 7/10/1985 but possession of the garden land was ultimately not delivered. On 17/10/1985 the State Government preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned trial Judge and such appeal was numbered as Appeal No.508 of 1985 and the Court of appeal passed an ad interim order staying the operation of the order appealed from. After a contested hearing, the Court of Appeal made the ad interim order absolute on 18/11/1985. As a result, the operation of the judgment appealed from was stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The Court of Appeal disposed of the said appeal No.508 of 1985 by his judgment dated 12/12/1985. The Court of appeal had observed that although the learned trial Judge had held that the vacant portion of the premises was not required for public purpose but the requirement of the vacant portion of the plot may have to be reviewed again in the event the authority would seek to acquire both the covered portion and the vacant land in an appropriate acquisition proceeding. It was held by the Court of appeal that from the records it was clear that the public purpose which the authority had in mind when it initially requisitioned the said premises was that the said premises should be used for the office and residential accommodation of a particular officer. In the event the said premises is sought to be acquired for the very same public purpose, the authority if challenged will have justify the purpose. The Appeal Court made it clear that the judgment of the Appeal Court should not stand in the way of the authority if they seek to justify the future acquisition for public purpose. The Appeal Court also made it clear that it will be equally open to the respondents, the owners of the property, to impugn the public purpose as may be advanced by the Authority if an acquisition proceeding is initiated. The order of the learned trial Judge was modified to the above extent. The State Government decided to acquire the said premises including the vacant land or the garden land as the State Government was of the view that the entire premises was essentially necessary for the office-cum-residence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control). The owners of the land viz. the writ petitioners apprehending acquisition of the said premises including the garden land moved a writ petition before this Court on 25/04/1986. On the said writ petition, a Rule 'Nisi' was issued and an interim order was passed restraining the State Government from serving the order of requisition in respect of the said premises. It appears that on 31/05/1986, the order of requisition of the said premises including the garden land was issued under West Bengal Act II of 1948 but such order was not served because of the interim order passed on 25/04/1986. Later on the interim order was modified by granting leave to the State Government to serve the order of requisition dated 31/05/1986 and such order of requisition was thereafter served on 1/08/1986. On 2/08/1986 the petitioners reported to the Land Acquisition Collector for taking delivery of possession of the property in terms of the order of de-requisition. But such possession was not delivered in view of the fact that subsequently a fresh order of requisition under Act IIof 1948 was passed. On 4/08/1986, a notification under S.4(1a) of the West Bengal Act 11 of 1948 was issued acquiring the disputed premises together with the vacant land and such notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 16/08/1986. The owners of the premises, namely, the petitioners in the writ proceeding, thereafter challenged the said order of requisition and consequential order of acquisition under S.4(la) of the West Bengal Act II of 1948.

(3.) As aforesaid, the learned trial Judge allowed the writ proceeding and quashed the order of acquisition.