CALCUTTA ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO Vs. SATYENDRA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 24th of September 1943 when premises No. 4, Ghore Bibi Lane, Narkeldanga, Calcutta was held in the possession of the military authorities having been requisitioned under the provisions of Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India addressed a letter to the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Revenue Department stating that the Government of India considered the acquisition of the property to be essential for the maintenance of supplies and services and considered that the land should be acquired as quickly as possible for the purpose of extension of the factory of the Calcutta Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of table fans, motors and other electrical goods. In this letter the Deputy Secretary further requested the Secretary to the Government of Bengal that action should be taken under the Defence of India Rules to requisition and acquire the land and place it at the disposal of the Company, adding that the Company would be responsible for all expenses connected therewith. Thereafter, on the 20th of October 1943 an order derequisitioning the property was passed by the First Land Acqusition Collector, Calcutta. On the same day a fresh order requisitioning the property was made by the same authority and thereafter notices purporting to be under clause (2) of Rule 75A were served from time to time on several persons said to be the owners of the land stating that the land had been acquired. Ultimately, on the 22nd of February 1945 a notice of acquisition of the same property was published in the Calcutta Gazette. This was in pursuance of an order made by the Land Acauisition Collector on the 29th January, 1945.

(2.) The question raised in the present litigation is whether the requisition by the order dated the 20th of October 1943 and the subsequent acquisition thereof under the Defence of India Rules was valid and effective in law. The litigation was commenced by the Das respondents on the basis of an interest in this property, acquired at a time when the land was already under requisition, averring that on the 20th of October 1943 when the property was derequisitioned and again requisitioned, the necessity of the military authorities had ceased to exist & that all that was done later on by the requisitioning & acquiring authorities was merely a device to get the land for defendant No. 2, the Calcutta Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. who had earlier tried in vain to purchase the property from the owners. The plaintiffs' case, therefore, was that this was really a mala fide exercise of the power under the law and was ineffective in law to affect their interest. They prayed for a declaration that the "proceedings purporting to be under the Defence of India Rules commencing with the order dated the 20th October 1943 and ending with the order dated 29th January 1945" with respect to the premises in suit "were not really for the defence of British India or for efficient prosecution of the war or for any other purpose specified in Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules but were merely a device resorted to for the purpose of benefiting defendant No. 2 and depriving the plaintiffs of the portions of the said property rightfully belonging to them or agreed to be sold to mem by means not allowed by the law of the land and that the said proceedings were illegal, ultra vires and totally void and did not operate to create any title in or confer any authority on the requisition and other authorities or to vest the said property in them and that the property was totally unaffected by the said proceedings and the plaintiffs' title in the property was not in the least affected thereby." There was also a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2--defendant No. 1 being the Province of Bengal and defendant No. 2 being the Calcutta Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd.--to pull down the structures that had been raised on the property after the 20th October 1943 and to restore the land to its original condition.

(3.) The main defence of both the appellants was that the requisition of the property on the 20th October 1943 and the acquisition of the same thereafter was in bona fide exercise of the powers of the Central Government and the Provincial Government under the Defence of India Rules and was not vitiated by any mala fides and that the story that it was a device to help the Calcutta Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to get the property was entirely untrue. Another defence taken was that the suit was bad for defect of parties, the Central Government, a necessary party, not having been impleaded.