MAHAMAYA ROW CHOUDHURY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE would like to place on record that we have very much appreciated the endeavour made by the learned counsel for the parties to assist us as best at they could. But after giving our anxious advertence to their arguments and to the materials on record as at present, we are satisfied that only two questions realy survive for our consideration in this appeal and no other question need obtain us for the present.

(2.) THE first question is whether the notice Of requisition under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 is valid and was validly served. And the Second question is that since the public purpose for which the land has been requisitioned relates to the Calcutta Improvement trust whether the authorities concerned could resort to this West Bengal Act of 1948 at all when the Calcutta Improvement Act 1911 itself provides for acquisition of land for such purpose.

(3.) AS the first question, we are satisfied that the challenge to the service of noitice a behalf of the appellant was rather half-hearted. The respondents is paragraph 6 (c) and paragraph 9 of their affidavit have categorically stated about the mode in which the process-server of the office of the First Land acquisition Collector served the notice and it has been stated that the same was done by affixing the notice on the front door of the residential house of the appellant. To this, the reply of the appellant is that there is no front door in this residence and as such no notice could be affixed on the front door. If a notice was served on the premises, as required under the relevant Act and the Rules made thereunder, the mere fact that it was not affixed on the front door but was affixed at some other conspicuous place cannot invalidate the notice. As has been repeatedly ruled by the Supreme Court, the tendency of the courts to technicalities must be deprecated and it is the substance that must count and must be allowed to take precedence over mere form and formalities. The learned trial Judge has also dealt with this aspect in appreciable details and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on going through the records we find no reason to come to any different conclusion. We, accordingly, hold that the notice of requisition under Section 3 of the Act of 1948 was legally served as required by law.