MD TAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Banerjee, J., dated February, 19, 1963, discharging a rule obtained by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts relating to the matter are set out below.

(2.) A Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of certain plots of land for settlement of immigrants who had migrated into the State of West Bengal. The land in question is in the district of Hooghly, the total area being 245.61 acres. The appellants being aggrieved by the Notification, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind or withdraw the Notification or in the alternative a writ of certiorari for quashing the said Notification. On this application a rule was issued and this appeal is directed against the order discharging this rule.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kuamr Dutta, learned advocate for the appellants, contended that Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defined public purpose, and such definition included among other things, settlement of immigrants who have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their control. It was argued that as the land in question was required for settlement of immigrants, it should have been acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 which, according to Mr. Dutta, was exhaustive in its scope, for the settlement of immigrants. That being the object of the acquisition, namely, settlement of immigrants, the acquisition should not have been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He referred to the definition of 'public purpose' in Section 2(f) of the Land Acquisition Act and contended that public purpose as defined therein was insufficient or inadequate to cover or include acquisition of land for settlement to immigrants. On the other hand, public purpose as defined in Section 2(d)(i) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, specifically dealt with the question of settlement of immigrants. It was argued that the object of the acquisition being what it was, as set out in the Notification, it was not open to the respondents, to use the phrase employed by Mr. Dutta, "to switch over from the said Act to the Central Act for the purpose of securing land for settlement of immigrants". The said Act, Mr. Dutta contended, was more comprehensive than the Central Act and therefore the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was an error apparent on the face of the records as the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 was a complete Code for the purpose of acquiring land for settlement of immigrants.