NILKANTHA PADMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, is an Act to provide for the acquisition and development of land for public purposes. Section 4 of the Act provides for declaration of a notified area in the following language : -

(2.) THIS notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1948) to all whom it may concern. The petitioner alleges to be the owner of three of the plots of land mentioned in the notification. He finds fault with the notification on the theory that the notification is not in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, in that there has been no declaration of a ''notified area" made by the notification. With the aforesaid grievances, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and to cancel the notification and has obtained this Rule. The point raised in this Rule is technically attractive. Section 4 of the Act requires the State Government to "declare any area specified in the notification to be a notified area". What the impugned notification has done is that it has specified an area in the notification but has not expressly declared the area specified to be the notified area. This is technically not in strict compliance with the language of Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) MR. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued that since hearing of objections under Section 4a, preparation and sanction of development schemes under section 5, declaration of acquisition of land needed for development schemes under section 6 of the Act have all to be made with reference to the "notified area" absence of declaration as to "notified area" made further proceedings under the notification unworkable. He, therefore, argued that such a notification should not be allowed to stand. I have already expressed opinion that the impugned notification is not in strict compliance with the language of section 4 of the Act. I can think of one reason why it is not so. The impugned notification is of the type issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894f which, however, is couched in a different language as set out below:-