MOHON KOIRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are thika tenants in respect of more than 3/4th portion of the premises No. 121/5. Circular Garden Reach Road and it is stated that their forefathers constructed the huts standing on the same premises and have been residing with their respective families for more than 16 years. By a notification dated 1st March, 1962, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal notified that the piece of land comprising premises No. 121/5, Circular Garden Reach Road, is likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., for the expansion and development of Kidderpur Academy in Ward no. 85 of the Calcutta Municipality in the city of Calcutta. It is alleged by the petitioners that no public notice of the substance of such notification was given at convenient places in the locality as required under the law. No individual notice was alleged to have been served upon the petitioners who therefore could not get any opportunity of making any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also stated in the petition that the Kidderpur Academy is a private institution and also is the owner of adjoining lands on the south-west side of the school measuring about one bigha and other adjoining land and those lands were lying vacant at present. Thereafter by a declaration dated 26th February, 1965 issued under Section 6 of the Act, it was notified that whereas the Government was satisfied that the land was need for a public purpose, viz. for the expansion and development of Kidderpur Academy, it was declared that the said piece of land comprising premises No. 121/5, Circular Garden Reach Road was needed for a public purpose.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the said two notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in the rule. An affidavit of Sri Manindra Sarkar has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Regarding allegation that no public notice of the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was given at convenient places, the said affidavit specifically states that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was duly published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 15th March. 1962. The records of the land acquisition proceedings were also made available before this Court at the time of the hearing of this rule. On a perusal of the said records I am satisfied that the requirements of the law have been fully complied with and public notice of the substance of the notification has been caused at convenient places in the locality. In fact, the learned Counsel for the petitioners was allowed to have inspection of the said records and on such inspection he has in his fairness conceded that his grievance on that score was not maintainable.

(3.) The next point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the purpose which was set out in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was expansion and development of the Kidderpur Academy. Such purpose was a vague one and there was no indication of the particulars of the development and expansion of the said Academy in the absence of which it was not possible to prefer any objection effectively under Section 5-A of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Singh v. Union of India. In my view this contention on behalf of the petitioners does not bear a closer scrutiny. The purpose for which the land is needed has been stated to be the expansion and development of the Kidderpur Academy. There is neither any vagueness nor any indefiniteness in the declaration of such purpose. In (vide supra) the notification merely mentioned that the land was needed for "plan and development of the area" and there was no proof that the interested persons were either aware of or were shown the scheme or the master plan in respect of plan development. On this fact it was held that the persons affected were unable to object effectively and hence the acquisition proceedings were quashed. It is true that under Section 4 of the Act the public purpose for which the land is needed, is to be particularised in order that the right to file objection under Section 5-A does not become an illusory one. Such right to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition. (Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U. P.). If such a right is to be effectively exercised, the person interested in the land proposed to be acquired must have an opportunity to submit his objection and this cannot be done if the notification under Section 4 (1) while mentioning the public purpose does not give some definite indication or particulars of the said purpose which would enable the person concerned to object effectively, if he so desired. In the absence of such specific or particular purpose being stated, the person affected cannot prefer any valid or proper objection. It is necessary to bear in mind that if the public purpose is not particularised it is difficult also for the authorities to carry out the various acts which may be required to be done under Section 4 (2) of the Act. But as I have already stated the public purpose set out in the declaration does not suffer from any of the infirmities stated earlier. In the case of Arnold Rodrique v. State of Maharashtra. The purpose set out therein was "development and utilisation of the land as an industrial and residential area". The public purpose was considered to have been stated in the said declaration with sufficient particularity. In the present case, unlike the case of Munshi Singh v. Union of India. (vide supra), the public purpose has been sufficiently particularised. Expansion and development of a school, viz.. Kidderpur Academy gives the persons interested in filing objection, a sufficient indication and opportunity to prefer objection effectively and exercise their right under Section 5-A of the Act.