FAYEZ SHEIKH JAHGI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF NADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a number of petitioners against the District magistrate and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nadia, Krishnagar. The petitioners challenged the notification and declaration in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 12th December, 1956, issued by the Land Development Department acquiring and declaring that the lands of the petitioners are needed for the public purposes of settlement of immigrants who had migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their control.

(2.) ONLY two points have been urged before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The first point is that no hearing was given to the petitioners to the objections filed by them before the Collector. The second is that the amendment of the West Bengal land Development and Planning Act of 1948 being the West Bengal Land Development and Planning (Amendment)Act of 1955 is ultra vires the Constitution.

(3.) THE first ground is a question of fact. I have seen the records of the Government which have been produced after the Rule was issued and the records of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in these proceedings. His clear record is that altogether eighty-three objection petitions were filed within the prescribed time. These objection petitions included an objection petition addressed to the Chief Minister and that all these objections were heard and local enquiry was held. In fact, the Special Land Acquisition Officer says in his affidavit that the objectors including the petitioners were heard individually on specific dates, viz. , the 31st May, 1956, the 1st June, 1956 and the 2nd June, 1956 at Dhubulia Union Board Office and they were heard after issuing necessary notices on each of them. He also says that after completion of those hearings and the local inspection, the enquiry report along with the recommendations on objections under section 4 (A) (2) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning act was submitted to the Government. The report was produced along with the records of this case which confirms this affidavit. I find that the petitioners were informed and all of them were heard either individually or through their authorised agents. I, therefore, must overrule the objection of the petitioners that their objections were not heard or that they had no opportunities to present their case before the Acquiring Authority.