LAWS(CAL)-1997-2-21

JAYKRISHNA BASU Vs. STATE

Decided On February 20, 1997
JAYKRISHNA BASU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are admittedly owners of Plot No. 41/572 (earlier L.R. Plot No. 572) measuring an area of 4.47 acres comprised in R. S. Khatian No. 217 J.L. No. 102 of Mouza-Shibpur have filed this writ application for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the notification dated 18-10-1996 issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of West Bengal in terms of S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as contained in Annexure 'F' to the 4 writ application, inter alia, on 2 grounds, namely, (i) that the direction in the said notification purported to be under S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is bad in law as there is no emergency, particularly in view of the fact that Indian Oil Corporation Limited had entered into negotiations with them for purchase of the said land and (ii) there is no public purpose involved in the said acquisition. Although no other point had been taken in the writ petition, in the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition, a new point has been taken that the purported proceeding under the said Act, is bad in law, inasmuch as, provision of Chapter VII of the said Act, had not been complied with prior to the issuance of the said notification.

(2.) Mr. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of his aforementioned contentions has relied upon a decision in the case of Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1977 SC 183, Dora Phalauli v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1594 and a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Santosh Kumar Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1996 (1) Cal HN 83.

(3.) Dr. Tapas Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 on the other hand, has submitted that the lands are being acquired for a public purpose and in support of the aforementioned contention, my attention has been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that the Barauni Refinery of the respondent-Corporation is not functioning to its rated capacity in view of the fact that the supply of crude oil is not adequate as it gets crude oil from Assam Oil Fields. It has been further stated that the availability of Assam Crude Oil to Barauni Refinery has been of the order of 2.2MMTPA against the capacity of 3.3 MMTPA although the said Refinery can process 4.2 MMTPA, as a result whereof the present capacity of about 2 MMTPA remained unutilised. It has been further pointed out that the crude availability to Barauni Refinery from Assam Oil Fields was likely to go down after completion of expansion projects of the existing refineries and commissioning of Numaligarh Refinery. With a view to meet the large deficit in the region, Government of India approved a project for laying down 500 Km. long crude oil pipeline from Haldia to Barauni and the land in question is required for the purpose of setting up of a intermediate pump station. It has further been pointed out that laying down of the pipelines between Haldia and Barauni was approved by the Government of India as a project of national importance. It has been submitted that the said project is a time bound project for which 42 months time had been granted, but in view of the urgency, time schedule has been reduced to 30 months. According to Dr. Banerjee, therefore, installation of an intermediate pump station being very important, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the possession of the land in question was required to be taken over on emergency basis, failing which, national exchequer will incur a colossal loss. Learned counsel pointed that a declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as an order under S. 7 had been issued, and thus, this writ application is not maintainable, inasmuch the petitioners have filed the application suppressing the aforementioned fact.