BANKU BEHARI DUTT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, with all the structures standing thereon. The petitioner states that the said premises is occupied and partly used by the petitioner for his residential purpose and as partly his business purposes. On 8th January, 1974, the petitioner received a notification published in the Calcutta Gazette. The said notification which is annexure B to the petition, inter alia, states as follows:

(2.) In the said notification it is stated that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner duly took inspection of the said plan. According to the petitioner, the plan, as inspected merely indicated the premises sought to be acquired and did not give any details or particulars or specific reasons or cause for which the said premises was being acquired by the respondents. The petitioner, thereafter caused enquiries in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, being the respondent No. 2 herein and the petitioner was informed that the said premises of the petitioner was being acquired for construction of A. C. Plant and other electrical arrangements in connection with the said system. The petitioner received no further information regarding the purpose of such acquisition. The petitioner filed objection on the 12th February, 1974, to the said notification. The petitioner took various objections against said acquisition. The petitioner, however, contended that in the absence of further particulars it was not possible for the petitioner to indicate further objection. The petitioner, however, pointed out that two premises, namely No. 28-A and No. 18 both situated at Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, were more suitable for the purpose of A. C. Plant and other electrical arrangments. The petitioner, further, pointed out various other alternative sites were available which would be far more suitable for the purpose of construction of A.C. Plant and other electrical arrangements. Thereafter, there was a hearing on the 19th March, 1974, before the respondent No. 2. It is not necessary to mention the details of hearing but it appears that on or about 19th April, 1974, the petitioner again appeared before the respondent No. 2 and made certain submissions regarding alternative sites. At the said hearing the petitioner again submitted that alternative sites were available and agreed to file further petition showing such alternative sites. Pursuant to the said arrangement, on 27th April, 1974, the petitioner filed further petition along with plans before the respondent No. 2 stating full details of alternative sites which were more suitable. On the 27th April, 1974, the petitioner's advocate received a copy of the letter from the respondent No. 2 stating that a further joint inspection would be held on 3rd May, 1974. The respondent No. 2 also informed the petitioner that M.R.T.S. authorities had examined the sites suggested by the petitioner as alternative to the said premises being acquired and since none of the same would suit the purpose of the requiring authority, joint inspection on 3rd May, 1974 was cancelled. Thereafter, on 3rd May, 1974, the petitioner filed further petition before the respondent No. 2. By the said petition the petitioner duly recorded that full opportunity had not been given. The petitioner further stated that the first date of hearing the same was adjourned. Again by a letter dated 11th May, 1974, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that local inspection and hearing of objection would be held on 20th May, 1974. The said letter was actually addressed by the respondent No. 2 to the Executive Engineer, M.R.T.S. (Railways Calcutta). The said letter was to the following effect:

(3.) A copy of the said letter was forwarded to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said letter a joint inspection of alternative sites was held on 21st May, 1974. Thereafter, on 23rd July, 1974 the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that further hearing of the petitioner's objection would take place on 29th July, 1974. It is the case of the petitioner that at that hearing the respondent No. 2 showed to the petitioner a letter addressed by the Executive Engineer wherein he stated that two premises Nos. 61 and 63, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road together would serve the purpose. Thereafter, it has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent that the suggestion of the petitioner for alternative site was considered and attention of the requiring authority was also drawn to the said alternative suggestion but the requiring authority intimated that premises No. 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road was preferred by them for technical considerations. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 was issued on the 10th September, 1974. The petitioner states that the petitioner came to know of the said declaration on 7th December, 1974. The said declaration, inter alia, contains the following: