CHIRKUT TEWARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Banerjee J., dated September 11, 1961, whereby a rule nisi obtained by the appellant, on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, was discharged. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and known as Hooghly Kristi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) required some land for its activities. The appellant claims to be the owner and as such in actual possession of C. S. plots Nos. 3367 and 3368, which together cover an area of more or less .086 acres. These plots are situated in the town of Chinsurah, and it is alleged by the appellant, that they are contiguous to all routes of buses and other communications. The appellant is a minor and it is claimed that he is maintained by his father and natural guardian Jagannath Tewari, out of the income of the said properties.

(2.) A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated July 11, 1956, was published for acquisition of the said land. In this notification it was staled that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpuse, namely, the construction of a Public Hall and buildings for cultural and social works of the Hooghly Kristi Parishad. It was also stated that the said land was likely to be needed for the public purpose at the expense of the Hooghly Kristi Parishad. The appellant thereupon filed an objection under Section 5-A of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly. The grounds of the objection, inter alia, were that the acquisition proceedings were commenced mala fide, as there was dispute and enmity between the appellant and one Nityagopal Dey, one of the members of the said Parishad. Suits were filed to oust the appellant from the said land and Dey, having lost in all the suits, purported to make an ostensible gift to the said Parishad of the plots of land in question by the acquisition proceedings. The next ground of objection was that the purpose of the acquisition was not a public purpose, and that the said Parishad was not in need of any land as it was in possession of sufficient land. The next ground was that there was no need of a Public Hall as there were several such halls and libraries, which could be and were used whenever required.

(3.) By a letter dated September 20, 1956 the Collector, Hooghly, fixed September 26, 1956, for hearing of the objections before the Special Land Acquisition Collector Hooghly. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on January 22, 1959. On February 23, 1959, the Collector, Hooghly, issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act, stating therein that the Government Intended to take possession of the land and that claims for compensation might be made to the Collector. On March 20, 1959, the appellant filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Collector against the said notice. By a notice dated June 2, 1959, the appellant was informed that an award of compensation had been made by the Collector on June 1, 1959, and that a sum of Rs. 4,995.31 nP. was payable to him as such compensation. The appellant was called upon to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector personally or by agent if he was willing to accept the said compensation. The appellant was not satisfied with the award of compensation and filed a pelition for a reference under Section 18 of of the Act to Court, for determination of the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation and other connected matters, bY a memorandum dated August 10, 1959 the appellant was directed to vacate the land and to deliver vacant possession on August 28, 1959 at 11 a. m. to Kanungo, D. L. Chakravarty. This was followed by a written representation dated August 16, 1959, on behalf of the appellant to the Collector of Hooghly, that the acquisition proceedings were bad, firstly, because the said Parishad was not a company, secondly because the acquisition was mala fide as it was alleged to be engineered at the instance of a Minister of the State Government, who was the President of the said Parishad which served no public purpose, thirdly, be cause, the land belonged to a minor and was encumbered being the subject-matter of litigation and finally because the appellant was not given a hearing. A further representation was made on the same day to the Special Officer and Deputy Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department to the effect that the Notification under Section 4 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been made in contravention of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution and the Rules of Business made by the Governor, that no consent of the State Government as required under Section 40(1) of the Act had been taken, and that Section 40(1)(b) of the Act had not been complied with.