ABDUL KADER LASKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are three in number and claim to be interested in. 49 acres of land comprised in plots Nos. 275 to 278 in Mouza Ukhila Paikpara, District 24 Parganas. On August 3, 1961, there was a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Calcutta Gazette, whereby an area of 1,68 acres of land including the land claimed by the petitioners, was notified for acquisition as likely to be needed for the construction of Students Home of the Ramkrishna Mission at the expense of the Mission. The petitioners severally filed objections to the notification, inter alia, characterising the same as mala fide and unnecessary for any public purpose. The petitioners allege that no notice of any hearing under section 5a of the Lend Acquisition act was served upon the petitioners and no hearing was given to them in respect of their objections. The petitioners further allege that there was no report submitted under section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act dealing with the objections by the petitioners or if submitted, the same was "sham, collusive, fraudulent, void and/or illegal. " thereafter on October 23, 1962, an agreement between the respondents Ramkrishna Mission and the Stale Government under section 42 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published in the Calcutta Gazette and on the very next day the declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette, according to the petitioners, there was no enquiry made under section 40 of the Act and even if made was done at the back of the petitioners. They further allege that the respondent State Government could not lawfully consent to the proposed acquisition, in the circumstances of the case. They also allege that the acquisition of the land for a body like Ramkrishna Mission was not, for public purpose, firstly because the Mission had more than ample land already in its, possession and particularly because the agreement did not lay down the terms on which the public would be entitled to use the land sought to be acquired. Failing to induce the respondents to abandon the acquisition the petitioners moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel, set aside or revoke the notification, the agreement and the declaration and obtained this Rule, on the following three limited grounds :

(2.) IN clarification of the statement in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition. it is further stated in the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners severally filed their objections and altogether seven objections, including those filed by the petitioners, were received, a date of hearing was thereafter fixed ; notices of the date fixed for hearing of the objections were served by affixation upon the petitioners, because they were not found at their residential addresses; on the date fixed for hearing the petitioners were represented by S. N. Mukherjee Advocate, who was heard on the separate objections filed by the petitioners. The copy of the report shows that the objections by the petitioners were separately considered. I find no reason to disbelieve the statements in the affidavit-in-opposition and the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition. That being the position, I find no substance in grounds (iv) and (xx), on which this Rule was issued. I now turn to ground (xiii ). I have already held that there was no lacuna in the enquiry conducted under section 5a of the Act. In an enquiry under section 40 of the Act, persons whose plots of land are acquired are not necessarily to be heard. That enquiry is held for the satisfaction of the State Government before giving its consent under the Act.

(3.) THE State Government may arrive at that satisfaction even on consideration of the report under section 5a, without a separate enquiry. If the State Government at all enquires further, it need not do so by hearing the persons whose lands are being sought to be acquired. I, therefore, find no substance in this ground also. The plots of land are being sought to be acquired for construction of buildings for the Students' Home of the Ramkrishna Mission (vide clause 4 of the agreement and the declaration under section 6 of the Act ). In paragraphs 4 and 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition by respondents Nos. 1 to 4, the construction of the Students' Home is said to serve a public, purpose, being part of the expansion programmer of the educational institutions run by the Ramkrishna Mission. This is, therefore, not the type of purpose which was condemned by the Supreme Court in (1) State of West Bengal v. P. N. Talukdar, (A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 646 ). Admittedly Ramkrishna Mission runs educational institutions for public education. Erection of residential hostels for students getting their education in such institutions must be in aid of a public purpose and it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 that the State Government was satisfied about the public utility of such construction. This type of acquisition is in consonance with section 40 (1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act as was observed by the Supreme Court in its later decision in (2)2 B. K. Agarwalla v. State of West Bengal, (A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 995 ). For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in this application and discharge the Rule. There will be no order for costs. Interim orders, If any, stand vacated.