RABINDRA NATH CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment of Bose J. dated 13-5-1952. The question which was agitated before Bose J. related to the validity or otherwise of an order for requisition dated 13-8-1951, made under the provisions of Section 3(1) of West Bengal Act 2 of 1948. The allegation of the appellant was that he had no notice of the proceeding under Act 2 of 1948 and later came to know on enquiry about the said order when steps were being taken by respondent No. 3 to take possession of the appellant's property.

(2.) Bose J. dismissed the application principally on two grounds. In the first place he was of opinion that the title of the appellant (petitioner) was disputed and that there was no sufficient evidence before him in support of that title. It appears on a perusal of the papers that the settlement record of rights stands in the name of the vendor of the appellant (petitioner). Prima facie, therefore, the appellant (petitioner) had title. There was no clear denial that the appellant (petitioner) had purchased from Dwijapada Ballav in whose name the record stood. There is therefore, not much force in the objection which was pressed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The second objection which found favour with Eose J. was that there was no demand of justice before the filing of the application under Article 226. It appears however that in point of fact there was a resistance on behalf of the appellant (petitioner) when the respondents wanted to take possession. The appellant (petitioner) asserted his claim and made a demand of justice which was not acceded to on behalf of the respondents. It is true there was no formal demand of justice, but as has been held by the Supreme Court, in the case of -- Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji', we have to look to the substance of the matter. It cannot therefore be said that there was no demand of justice and a denial on the part of the respondents. There is no question that there was such a clear denial after the filing of the application. On all these grounds I am of opinion that there is no force in the second objection raised on behalf of the respondent which found favour with Bose J.