# [1971] 3 S.C.R. 791

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 791
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-02-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 500 Of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1971-3-s-c-r-791-5418
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Wert Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-lf ultra
vires Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f) and (5).
On the question whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, W!)S ultra vires the Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f)
read with 19(5).
HELD : The State of West Bengal was faced with many emergent problems created by the partition of India and the impugned Act was enacted
in order to provide for requisitioning and speedy acquisition of land under
s. 3 for a number of public purposes mentioned therein. The necessity for
requisitioning must necessarily be left to the State Government.
Though
there is no express provision to make a representation against an order of
requisition undelr s. 3 (2) there is no bar to such a representation being
made and to its being considered by the State Government or appropriate
Governmental Authorities. If, however, any order is made for any collateral purpose, dr has been made for purposes not mentioned in s. 3 of the
Act, or is mala fide, it can always be challenged in a civil court. Under
ss, 7 (3) and ( 4), 8 and SA of the Act, fair compensation bas been provided for requisitioning which is determinable by a civil court, if there is
a dispute regarding the amount, and ultimately by the High Court and this
Court. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act, are not
unreasonable. [792 C, D; 794 D-F)

## Text

,
A
B
c
D
E
791
S. M. NANDY & ORS.
v ..
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
February 19, 1971
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Wert Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-lf ultra
vires Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f) and (5).
On the question whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, W!)S ultra vires the Constitution under Art. 19(1) (f)
read with 19(5).
HELD : The State of West Bengal was faced with many emergent problems created by the partition of India and the impugned Act was enacted
in order to provide for requisitioning and speedy acquisition of land under
s. 3 for a number of public purposes mentioned therein. The necessity for
requisitioning must necessarily be left to the State Government.
Though
there is no express provision to make a representation against an order of
requisition undelr s. 3 (2) there is no bar to such a representation being
made and to its being considered by the State Government or appropriate
Governmental Authorities. If, however, any order is made for any collateral purpose, dr has been made for purposes not mentioned in s. 3 of the
Act, or is mala fide, it can always be challenged in a civil court. Under
ss, 7 (3) and ( 4), 8 and SA of the Act, fair compensation bas been provided for requisitioning which is determinable by a civil court, if there is
a dispute regarding the amount, and ultimately by the High Court and this
Court. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act, are not
unreasonable. [792 C, D; 794 D-F)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 500 Of
1967.
F
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1965
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
H
104 Of 1963.
.
Arun Kumar Datta and D. N. Mukh11rjee, for the appellants.
Niren De, Attorney-General and P. K. Chakravarti for the
respondent.
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C.J.
The following question has been referred to the
Cons~tut!on Bench under the proviso to art.
145 ( 3) of the
Constitution :
"~~7ther the West ~engal Land (Requisition and
Acqms1tion) Act 1948 JS ultra vires the Constitution
under art. 19(1 )(f) read with art. 19(5) ?"
- '",.
792
SUPREME·COURT REPORTS
[197 l j 3 S.C.R.
The learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Arun Kumar
J?~tta, challenges the Wi:st Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquis1t1on) Act, 1948-heremafter referred to as the impugned act--
on the ground that it does not impose reasonable restrictions
within art. 19 ( 5) of the Constitution.
He urges three grounds
in this respect.
First, he says, that there is no provision for a
notice to the ownet or the occupier of the property before an
order of requisition is passed, secondly, there is no provision for
an appeal against the order of requisition, and thirdly, a civil
suit is barred under s. 11 of the impugned Act.
In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to set out the scheme of the Act.
The impugned act was enacted in order to provide for
requisitioning and
. speedy acquisition of land for a_ number of public purposes. These
purposes are : ( 1) maintaining supplies and services essential to
the life of the community; ( 2) provide proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage; and ( 3) creation of
better living conditions in urban or rural areas by the construe-
.lion or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas.
The
State of West Bengal was faced with many emergent problems
created by the partition of India, and this Act was designed to ·
meet these problems in a speedy manner. Section 3 enables the
State Government to requisition land for the purposes mentioned
above.
A Collector of a district, an Additional District Magistrate or the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, when
authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may exercise
within his jurisdiction tile powers of requisitioning conferred by
sub-s. (1). Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provides for service of this order
in the prescribed manner on the owner of land and also on the
occupier not being owner of land.
Under sub-s. ( 3) of s. 3 the
Collector, or' any person authorised by him in writing in this
behalf is entitled to execute the order in the manner mentioned
therein, if the order passed under su b-s. ( 2) is not complied with
by any person.
There is nothing in the impugned Act which
prevents a person on whom an order has been served under sub-s.
(2) to make a representation to the Collector or the State
Government against the order of requisition.
Section 4 enables
the State Government to use or deal with the land for the purposes aforesaid.
We are not concerned with acquisition in this _case but we
may mention that the State Govern~en.t may ac9mr~ any 13!1d
requisitioned under the Act by pubhshmg a notice m the offiCJal
gazette that such land is required for a public purpose referred to
in sub-s .. (1) of s. 3'.
.
Section 6 enables the State Government to derequisition or
rele.ase from requisition· any land.
A.
c
D
E
F'
G
H
S. M. NANDY V. WEST BENGAL (Sikri, C.J.)
A
The impugned Act provides for fair compensation in respect.
of the requisitioned land under s. 7(3) and·s. 7(4) ...
Sub-s. (3)
provides that where any land is requisitioned under s. 3, there
shall be paid to every person interested compensation in respect
ofB
c
D
E
F
G
H
(a) the requisition of such land; and
( b) any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other than what may have.
been sustained by natural causes.
Sub-s: ( 4) lays down the· principles to be followed in determining
the compensation. If the Collector and the person interested
agree to the compensation the Collector is enabled to make an
award ordering payment of the agreed compensation. If there
is disagreement, sub-s. ( 4) provides that the compensation pay--
able shall be the amount determined by the Court on reference.
made by the Collector under cl. (b) of sub-s. ( 1) of s. 8. Under
s. 8 the Collector is obliged to refer the matter to the decision of
the Court if there is any disagreement with regard to compens<1tion, and sub-s. ( 2) of s. 8 prescribes the same procedure as the:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in this regard, and the State Govern-·
ment is directed to apply the principles set out in sub-s. (1) of
s. 23 of that Act, and in cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 7 of the
impugned Act, which provides :
"7 ( 2 j'( a) When the compensation has been determined . under sub-section ( 1) the Collector shall make.
an award in accordance with the principles set out in
section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, al)d no
amount referred to in sub-section ( 2) of section 23 of
that Act, shall be included in the award :
Provided that interest at the rate of six per centum
per annum on the amount of compensation under the
award from the date of the publication of the· notice
under sub-section (1 a) of section 4 until payment shall
be included in the amount payable under the award."
It seems to us that these provisions give fair compensation and
enable a Civil Court to determine the question in case of a dispute.
An appeal' lies under s. SA from the award made by a
Court on a reference under s. 8 as if such award·was an original
decree passed by the Court in. exercise of its civil
jurisdiction.
N~t ~nly therefore fair compensation is provided but the determmat\on of the amount of compensation rests with a CiVil Court
in case of a dispute.
Although the learned counset took objection to the court which has to make an award, we· see nothing
-
7-94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
wrong with the definition of the word "Court".
The word
A
·"Court" has been defined to mean :
" "Court" means a principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction, and includes the Court of any Additional
Judge, Subordinate Judge or Munsif whom the State
Government may appoint, by name or by virtue of his
office, to perfonn concurrently with any such principal
Civil Court, all or any of the functions of the Court
under this Act within any specified local limits and, in
the case of a M unsif, up to the limits of the pecuniary
jurisdiction with which he is vested under section 19 of
the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887."
Section 11 provides that "save as otherwise expressly pro-
·vided in this Act, no decision or order made in exercise of any
power conferred by or under this Act shall -be. called iri question
in any Court." It seems to us that if any order is made for any
collateral purpose or has been made for 'purposes not mentioned
ins. 3 or is mala·fide, it can always be challenged.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is difficult to hold
that restrictions imposed by the impugnt;,d Act are unreasonable.
Fair compensation has been provided for requisitioning, which is
determinable by a Civil Court and ultimately by the High Court
or the Supreme Court.
Regarding the necessity for requisitioning it musLnecessarily be left to the State Government. It is
true that there is no express provision to make a representation
aga~nst an order of requisition but there is no bar to a represen:
tation being made after an order is served under s. 3 (2) of the
Act.
We have no dubt that i'f the representation raises a point
which overrides the public purpose it would be favourably considered by the State Government or other Government authorities
as the case may be.
Accordingly the question referred tO us is answered in the
:.riegative.
The ·case will now go back to the Division Bench 'for
disposal according to law.
·
"V.P.S.
Act held intra vives.
B
c
D
E
F