S L BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE writ petitioners claim to be the owners of the land which has been requisitioned under the West Bengal Act II of 1948. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners were not recorded as owners of the land only when the order under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act No. II) was passed. The petitioners' claim to have purchased the land in Dag No. 2488 to 2490 in mouza Natagarh, Police Station - Sodepur/khardah, District 24-Parganas (North) on different dates. In the beginning of 1985 it was found that 33 k. V. A. electric lines was drawn over the land in Dag Nos. 2489 and 2490 and touching the line of Dag No. 2488. The claim for removal of the aforesaid lines was turned down by the authorities. Therefore, on a grievance made by the petitioners the Electrical Inspector, West Bengal directed the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) to remove the aforesaid high voltage electric line. When the Board failed to take any action, the petitioners filed a writ petition being C. O. No. 3219 (W) of 1986. This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order: -

(3.) INSTEAD of complying with the aforesaid order, the respondents in order to legalise the trespass into the land of the petitioners got a notification issued on 6th June, 1987 regarding requisition of the land under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition)Act, 1948. The petitioners only came to know about the requisitioning when notices under Sections 5 (1) and 7 (2) were issued inviting objections against the requisition. The date of hearing of the aforesaid objections was fixed on 25th June,1992. The petitioners duly appeared. On the basis of the aforesaid objections, the petitioners have been duly recorded as owners. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the notice under Section 3 (2) had not been served on the petitioners. It was also submitted that the notices under Sections 5 (1) and 7 (2) were not served on the petitioners. They were also according to the petitioners not served with any notice under Section 12 (2) for receiving the compensations. The aforesaid points have also been reiterated before this Court. After considering the entire matter the learned Single Judge on the basis of the record came to the conclusion that when the property in question was requisitioned and acquired, the 33 K. V. A. electric lines had already been drawn. The learned Single Judge was not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the question of mala fide and also on the question of non-service of notice order under Section 3 (2) of the Act. On examination of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Single judge observed that with regard to the non-service of the notice under section 3 (2) there is a total denial in the affidavit-in-oppositions filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the question of serving notice under Section 3 (2) did not arise as at that time the petitioners had not been recorded as the owners of the land in the record of rights. It was not disputed before the learned Single Judge that the land in question was taken over and delivered to the Divisional Engineer, Barrackpore Division of West Bengal state Electricity Board on 15th January, 1987. The possession was handed over to the respondents on the order passed by the Collector. From the record the learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the acquisition and requisition of the plots in question was made as per proposal of the Assistant Secretary, Power Department by Memo dated 24th August,. 1986 for the purpose of maintaining the essential supplies and services by construction of 33/66 K. V. A. sub-station. The award has been declared in the name of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners were always present at the time of hearing and no objection was raised at the time of hearing regarding non-service of the order under Section 3 (2) of the said Act.