CHAYAHAHI MUKHERJEE Vs. ASST SECRETARY LAND AND LAND REVENUE DEFT REQUISITION BRANCH STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of the land and building at No. 1/6, Prince Golam mohammad Road, Calcutta. One D. C. Goswami was a tenant of the entire ground floor of the building. The appellant obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant, and started proceedings for execution of the decree. The connected Misc, Case was disposed of on July 23, 1960 in terms of a compromise by which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of October 1960. On October 31, the executing court rejected an application by the tenant for further time till November 3, and issued a writ for delivery of possession of the premises. Before this writ could be executed, the State Government passed an order on November 2, under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947) requisitioning the premises and directing the 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta to take possession of it. The order stated that "in the opinion of the State Government the premises. . . . . . . . . . . . are needed for a public purpose. " On November 3, the Collector took possession of the requisitioned premises from the tenant and under his orders one Shri A. S. Nag occupied the premises. On the same day the bailiff of the Alipore Court visited the premises, but was unable to execute the writ for delivery of possession.

(2.) THE appellant was unable to persuade the Government to cancel the requisitioning order. On April 27, 1961 she obtained a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not forbear from giving effect to the requisitioning order and all consequential orders and notices and why those orders and notices should not be quashed and set aside. On August 10, 1961 Sinha, J. discharged the Rule. He rejected the appellant's contention that (a) the impugned order was not supported by any public purpose and that (b) it was passed malafide and in collusion and conspiracy between the tenant and the other respondents. The appellant challenges this finding. The respondents support it and also contend that the factual existence of a public purpose is not justiciable, and the subjective satisfaction of the State Government in this behalf is final.

(3.) THE questions which arise in this appeal are (1) Is the factual existence of a public purpose for a requisition under Act V of 1947 justiciable? (2) If so, was the order of requisition supported by a public purpose? (3) Was the order passed malafide? west Bengal Act V of 1947 was passed on January 1, 1948. Originally it was to remain in force up to March 31, 1950, but section 1 (4) authorised the Provincial Government to direct by notification in the official gazette that it shall remain in force for a further period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate three years. Though no notification was issued by the Provincial government under section 1 (4) the act was not allowed to expire on 1. 3. 1930. The life of the Act was extended from time to time up to 31. 3. 1953 by Act 15 of 1950 passed on 30. 3. 1950, up to 31. 3. 1954 by Act 10 of 1953 passed on 28. 3. 1953. up to 31. 3. 1951 by Act 7 of 1954 passed on 29. 3. 1954, up to 31. 3. 1958 by Ordinance 2 of 1957 passed on 29. 3. 1957, up to 31. 3. 1960 by Act 9 of 1957 passed on 15. 7. 1957, up to 31. 3. 1963 by Act 2 of 1960 passed on 19. 3. 1960, up to 31. 3. 1964 by Act 9 of 1963 passed on 30. 3. 1963, and up to 31. 3. 1966 by Act 29 of 1963 passed on 15. 10. 1963.