ROMA BOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the petitioners is against the judgment and order passed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. on Feb. 10, 1978 discharging the Civil Rule No. 7597 (W) Of 1974.

(2.) The petitioners 1 to 3 who are the owners and the petitioner No. 4 who is a lessee in respect of the premises No. 104, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road challenged the notification dated 2-11-72 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as the declaration dated 29-11-73 made under Section 6 of the said Act on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule No. 7597(W) of 1974. The said notification under Section 4 was issued notifying that lands including the disputed premises mentioned in the said notification measuring more or less 0.754 hectare were likely to be needed for the public purpose namely for construction of Mass Rapid Transit system and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge, in the city of Calcutta. It was also mentioned therein that persons interested might file their objections to the acquisition within 30 days after the date on which public notice and the substance of the notification would be given in the locality. The petitioner No. 4, it has been stated, inspected the records of the case and took pencil copy of the rough sketch of the plan lying with the record of the case. The petitioner No. 4, however, was not shown the Master Plan and the sanctioned scheme relating to the Mass Rapid Transit system in spite of the request and he was told that the same would not be available. The petitioners filed an objection before the Collector and they were given hearing in respect of their objections. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published declaring that a portion of premises No. 104, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road Was needed for the aforesaid public purpose. In the objection filed it has been stated that the land of premises No. 104, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road is used for the religious purpose inasmuch as there is a temple on a portion of the land and in the said temple a marble Ganesh Bigraha which is the family deity has been installed. In front of the temple there is a 'Mandap', that is, the assembly floor used for marriage, Anna-prasana, Upanayana ceremonies etc. at the compelling requests of the local people and a part of the said premises is lying vacant. It has been stated that the said premises should be released from acquisition. It has also been submitted that the public purpose as mentioned in the notification under Section 4 was not specific and as such the declaration made on this basis was illegal and arbitrary. A Rule being Civil Rule No. 7597 (W) of 1974 was issued.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 wherein it was stated that the proposed land was required for construction of electric-sub-station and for construction of exhaust shaft. It has also been stated that a strip of lend on the northern side serving access to the 'Mandap' was excluded from acquisition and the acquisition is being made according to the revised plan which will not, in any way, disturb the religious function that will be held on the 'Mandap'. It has also been stated therein that the petitioners were fully aware of the purpose of the acquisition and there was no difficulty for the petitioners to file their objections effectively.