LILA DEB CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions were affirmed on 7th April, 1981 and were filed simultaneously therewith challenging the vires of Act II of 1948 as re-enacted by the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Re-enacting Act, 1977 as well as requisition orders dated 24th April, 1978 issued in relation to the lands belonging to the petitioners. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court has already declared that Act 2 of 1948 is intra vires, no argument was advanced that the said Act or the re-enacting Act is ultra vires. Although many a grounds had been taken to challenge the aforementioned requisition orders but only two grounds, namely, at the instance of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (in short, CMDA) no land could be requisitioned and that since possession of lesser area of the land, than notified, was taken the same would show that the land was not required, were urged at the hearing in relation to the case as had been made out in the original writ petition.

(2.) These writ petitions were considered by this Court on 16th April, 1981, when this Court issued rules and passed interim orders restraining the respondents, their servants and agents from proceeding any further on the basis of the said requisition orders as well as from interfering in any manner with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question for two weeks with liberty to pray for extension upon notice to the respondents. That interim order expired after expiry of two weeks from 16th April, 1981. During the subsistence of the said interim order or after expiry thereof, the same was not extended. In that view of the matter, acquisition notices under the said Act were issued concerning the lands, which were requisitioned. Thereafter on 17th February, 1986 an order was passed, whereby and whereunder this Court directed all the parties to maintain status quo as on 17th February, 1986 as regards construction and possession of the subject lands of the petitioners. Subsequent thereto this Court permitted the petitioners to bring on record subsequent events and also permitted the petitioners to challenge the acquisition notices issued under the said Act pertaining to the lands in question. In terms thereof the writ petitions have been amended. In the amended writ petitions very many grounds have been taken challenging the acquisition notices. At the hearing, however, the only submission was that the acquisition notices have lapsed by operation of law. I shall deal with these contentions separately.

(3.) In support of the first contention it was urged that the Act by which CMDA was originally constituted and also the Act by which CMDA was later on re-constituted do not permit CMDA to requisition any land for the appropriate sections provide that acquisition of land by CMDA would be deemed to be for public purpose. In contrast, my attention was drawn to certain Acts, by which some other authorities had been constituted, which, inter alia, provide that both requisition and acquisition at the instance of such authorities would be deemed to be for public purpose. It was also added that the functions of CMDA are such that if any land is required by CMDA, the same must be for a permanent requirement entitling CMDA to alter the land as it desires and therefore, at its instance no requisition can be had inasmuch as requisition cannot be for perpetuity, nor the same permits the requisitionist to change the nature and character of the land requisitioned.