# 79.S SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY.& ORS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS - **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 795 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1971-02-19 - **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, C. A. Vaidialingam, V. Bhargava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/79-s-sachindra-mohan-nandy-ors-v-state-of-west-bengal-ors-5419 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954-Cilandernagore (Assimilation of L<'lt's) Act, 1955-Exten•ion of Wes; Bengal Laws IP · Chandernagort territory-Wm Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 whether applicable to Chandernagore by virtue of Merger and Assimilation Acts afo•esald-Powtr of Collect01· to requisition land whether confined to areo of Hooghly District before merger of Chandernagore. · The French settlement of Chandermrgore was merged in the State of West Bengal with effect from October 2, 1954 by virtue of the Chandernagore (Mc'rger) Act, 1954. It was made part of Hoogly District. By s. 17 of the Merger Act the laws relating to Lists I and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, in force in West Bengal 'generally' were extended to the merged territory. By s. 18 the corresponding Jaws of French chandc'rnagore . were repealed. '-TQe Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955 by s. 3 thereof extended the laws relating to List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in force in West Bengal to the merged territory. By s. 4 the correspc>nding laws in force before merger we're repealed. The Collector of Hoogly in exercise of Powers conferred on him by notification dated May 11, 1948 made two orders under s. 3(1) of the Acquisition Act. The appellants challenged them in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition being. dismissed api)eal was filed in this Court. It was contended : · (i) that the clrders of requisition were illegal as the Acquisition Act under which they were issued did not apply to the territory pre\fously known as French Chandernagore; (ii) that under the notitjcation dated May 11, 1948 the Collector could exercise the powers of requisition only in respect of lands within the locaniinits of the territories then fotming part of the Hooghly District. HELD : (i) The first contention had no force. Section 3 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 made Chandernagore part of the State.of West Bengal and s. 17 extended the Acquisition Act to it. Tlie •Acquisition Act was a law within the meaning of 'law'· contained in s;·2(c) of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act because it related to a matter enu.merated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution whic~ refers to acquisition and requisitioning of property. In so far as the· Acquisition Act related to entry 42 of List III which deals with comiiensation, it was applied by s. 3 of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955, and s. 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, read with the definition. of the word 'laws' in s. 2(d) of the latter Act. [799 F• 800 A] ' The argument that the Acquisition Act was not in fclrce in West Bengal 'generally' because it was extended for short periods from time to time,. could not be accepted. The word 'generally' refers to the territory ·of West Bengal and not to the duration of time during which it had to operate. [800 B-C] ·~ The contention that because there was no corresponding law within· the meaning of ·s. 17 of the Merger Act and s. ·4 of the Assimilation Act, s. 3 of the latter Act did not have the effect of extending the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore must also be rejected. Section 4 has .. a limited effect 79H SUPRFME COURT REPORTS (1971 J 3 S.CK. and that is that ·if there :s a corrcsj,onding law then that law shall. ;is from that date, stand 'repealed in (~handcrnagore. If there is no corresponding law then s. 4 does not operate and it has no effect on the scope ot s. 3. f800 DJ A The fact that there ":as no la\v of rcquisifoning of property in French t~rritory could not mean that the citiz'!n ·enjoyed th~ privilege of in1rnunitv 1rom such a law. If by virtue of s. 3 of the Assimilation of Laws Act .:1n Act hccomcs applicable to Ch;indcrnagorc all Privileges and imn1unities in conflict with the Act would cease to exist. [800 E-FJ B (ii) The High Court was right in holding that the Collector of Hooj!ly 1u1J the otuthority to issue lhc orders in ## Text A B c D E F G H 79.S SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY.& ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. February 19, 1971 (S. M. SIKRI, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ,] Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954-Cilandernagore (Assimilation of L<'lt's) Act, 1955-Exten•ion of Wes; Bengal Laws IP · Chandernagort territory-Wm Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 whether applicable to Chandernagore by virtue of Merger and Assimilation Acts afo•esald-Powtr of Collect01· to requisition land whether confined to areo of Hooghly District before merger of Chandernagore. · The French settlement of Chandermrgore was merged in the State of West Bengal with effect from October 2, 1954 by virtue of the Chandernagore (Mc'rger) Act, 1954. It was made part of Hoogly District. By s. 17 of the Merger Act the laws relating to Lists I and III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, in force in West Bengal 'generally' were extended to the merged territory. By s. 18 the corresponding Jaws of French chandc'rnagore . were repealed. '-TQe Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955 by s. 3 thereof extended the laws relating to List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in force in West Bengal to the merged territory. By s. 4 the correspc>nding laws in force before merger we're repealed. The Collector of Hoogly in exercise of Powers conferred on him by notification dated May 11, 1948 made two orders under s. 3(1) of the Acquisition Act. The appellants challenged them in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition being. dismissed api)eal was filed in this Court. It was contended : · (i) that the clrders of requisition were illegal as the Acquisition Act under which they were issued did not apply to the territory pre\fously known as French Chandernagore; (ii) that under the notitjcation dated May 11, 1948 the Collector could exercise the powers of requisition only in respect of lands within the locaniinits of the territories then fotming part of the Hooghly District. HELD : (i) The first contention had no force. Section 3 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 made Chandernagore part of the State.of West Bengal and s. 17 extended the Acquisition Act to it. Tlie •Acquisition Act was a law within the meaning of 'law'· contained in s;·2(c) of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act because it related to a matter enu.merated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution whic~ refers to acquisition and requisitioning of property. In so far as the· Acquisition Act related to entry 42 of List III which deals with comiiensation, it was applied by s. 3 of the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955, and s. 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, read with the definition. of the word 'laws' in s. 2(d) of the latter Act. [799 F• 800 A] ' The argument that the Acquisition Act was not in fclrce in West Bengal 'generally' because it was extended for short periods from time to time,. could not be accepted. The word 'generally' refers to the territory ·of West Bengal and not to the duration of time during which it had to operate. [800 B-C] ·~ The contention that because there was no corresponding law within· the meaning of ·s. 17 of the Merger Act and s. ·4 of the Assimilation Act, s. 3 of the latter Act did not have the effect of extending the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore must also be rejected. Section 4 has .. a limited effect 79H SUPRFME COURT REPORTS (1971 J 3 S.CK. and that is that ·if there :s a corrcsj,onding law then that law shall. ;is from that date, stand 'repealed in (~handcrnagore. If there is no corresponding law then s. 4 does not operate and it has no effect on the scope ot s. 3. f800 DJ A The fact that there ":as no la\v of rcquisifoning of property in French t~rritory could not mean that the citiz'!n ·enjoyed th~ privilege of in1rnunitv 1rom such a law. If by virtue of s. 3 of the Assimilation of Laws Act .:1n Act hccomcs applicable to Ch;indcrnagorc all Privileges and imn1unities in conflict with the Act would cease to exist. [800 E-FJ B (ii) The High Court was right in holding that the Collector of Hooj!ly 1u1J the otuthority to issue lhc orders in question. .Jf the order of requisition is by a Collector then the notification of 1948 applies and the C<>lJcctoi' of Hoogly \\-Ould he authorised to issue orders rcqu:sitioning J.and c.xi'iting in ChanJcrnagorc hecausc Chandernagore had come \\:ithin the .limits of his jurisdiction. The notification must be construed to refer lo the liMils of the District as it exists on the date of the exercise of the Powers conferred by the notification. If the ordei"s of requisition wcri: issued by the Additional District Magistrale, then he had authority bv ·virtue of notification dated Sepatember 15, 1959, by which he wos em- .powered to perform the functions of a Collector. The said nl1titication amounted to 'special' appointment. of the said officer within the rncanin!! of the definition of 'Collector"· in the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1959. TSOO G-801 BJ C1v1L APPELLAT_E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 500 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 13. 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from original order No. 10.l of 1963. Art111 K. Dutt, D. N. Mukherjee and S. Dey, for the appellant. Niren De, Attorne)'-Genera/ aind P. K. Chakravarti. for the respondents. c D E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F Sikri, C.J. In our order dated March I 0, 1970, we stated that we will give our reasons later for rejecting the points raised before us. We now proceed to give. those reasons. This is an appeal against .the judgment of the High Court of -Calcutta (Bose, C.J., and Mitra, J;) dismissing the appe:ll of G Sachindra Mohan Nandy and Janandra Mohan Nandy, now appellants before us, against the judgment of Mukharji, J., dischargtng the rule obtained by the appellants under Art. 286 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the. points rasied before u> it is necessary to state the relevant facts. On October 9, 1960 and October 10, 1960, the Collector of -H Hoogly made iwo orders under s. 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-hereinafter referred to 1 A ·B ,C D E F .. ',.., G H S. M. NANDY V. WEST BENGAL (Sikri, C.J.) 797 as the Acquisition Act. The Collector purported to requisition land belonging to the appellants for certain public purpose&. He had issued the orders in exercise of the powers which had been conferred upon him by notification No, 3775-L.A. dated May 11, 1948, published in the Calcutta Gazette, Part I, on May 27, 1948. This notification had authorised the Collector to exercise the powers under s. 3(1) of tl:!.e Acquisition Act. When this notification was passed Chandemagore, where the requisitioned land is situate, was not part of West Bengal and it is on this fact that one argument, shortly to be mentioned, rests. According to the appellants the Acquisition Act has never been extended and made applicable to Chandernagore. For \lPPreciating this particular poin!. it is necessary 1lo state the history of Chan· demagore. It is well-known that it was a French settlement in India, and it was only on October 2, 1954, that it was merged in 'the State of Bengal Secfion 3 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 (XXXVI of 1954) provided that Chandernagore shall form part of the State of West Bengal, District of Hoogly, and the . State Government shall provide for the administration of Chandernagore by constituting it into a new sub-division of the District of Hoogly. Section 17 provided that "all laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may lie. come into force in, Chanderna· gore." Section 18 has not much relevance but the learned counsel relied on it. Section 18(1) reads thus : "18(1) Repeal of Correspondinl! laws and savings : Any law in force in Chandernagore 'immediarely before the appointed day (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "correspo~ing ~aw") which corresponds to any law re- !er!cd to m. section 17, whether su~h corresponding Jaw 1s m force m Chandemagore by Virtue of the Chail'dernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950, or by virrue 0f any notification issued under th~ <;handernagore (Ad· ministration) Regulation, 1952 (Reg. 1 of 1952) or otherwise, shall, a. from that duty, stand repealed in Chandernagore. The word "law" was defined in the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, as follows: (S. 2(d)) " "law" means so much of any enactment, Ordinance, Regulation, _order, rule, scheme, notification, byeJaw or any other mstrument having the force of law as relates to matters Clnumerated in List I and List Ill in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution." 798 SUPREME COURT .. RBPORTS [1971] 3 S.CR. ,After this the Legislature of West Bengal enacted the Chan- . demagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955. Section 2(c) bf this Act defined "law" to mean "so much of any Act, Ordinance, Regulation, order, rule, scheme, notification, .bye-law or any other instrument having the. force of law as relates to matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India." Section 3 provides that "all laws which immediately before .B the appointed day extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore." Section 4(1) provided for repeal of corresponding laws and reads : "4(1) Any law in force in Chandemagore immediately befpre the appointed day (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "corresponding law") which corresponds to any law referred to in section 3, whether such corresponding Jaw is in force in Chandernagore by vir1!ue of 'the Chandernagore (J\pplication of Laws) Order, 1950 or by virtue of any notification issued under the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation, 1952, or otherwise, shall as from the day stand repealed in Chandernagore." Section 8, which was inserted in 1959, removed certain doubts regarding the extension of certain acts to Chandernagore, in the following terms : "8. Notwithstanding anything .to the contrary, in any judgment or decision of any court1 tribunal or authority, the' following Acts, tha~ is to say,-The West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, The West Bengal Non-Agricul•ural Tenancy Act, 1949 and The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 shall extend ·to and be deemed always to have extended to Chandernagore with effect from the !lppointed day!' We may here set out the notifications empowering Sri B. K. Chatterjee, I.AS. to perform the functions of the Collector in the District of Hooghly under the. Acquisition Act. By the . first notification dated September 15, 1959, the Governor was pleased "to specially appoint Sri B. K. Chatterjee, I.AS., Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly, to perform the functions of a Collector .under the said Act in the District of Hooggl.y." Another notification issued on the same day had authorisea Sri B. K. Cliatterjee, I.AS., Additional'District Magistrate, Hooghly, to requisition by order in writing any land 'within the local limits of the District of Hooghly. The two requisition orders purport to have been signed·by the Collector of Hooghly. c E F H S. M, NANDY v, WEST BENGAL. (Sikri, C.J.) 799 -11. The notification dated May 11, 1948, to which reference has been made above reads as follows : · "No. 3775 L.A. (P.W.) 11th May, 1948. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948), the Governor is pleased hereby to authorise each· of the Collector and the Deputy Commissioners mentioned in the Schedule below to requisition, by order in writing, in pursuance of the provisions of the said Sub-section (1) of the said Section 3, (torn) land within the local limits of his jurisdiction and (torn) to make such further C orders as appear to him to be necessary 'f-Hooghly had the authority to issue the orders of requisition in question. If the order of requisition is by a collectqr, then the no.tification of 1948 applies and the Collector of Hooghly would be authorised to issue orders requisitioning land G existing in Chandemagore because Chandernagore had come within the limits of his jurisdiction. The notification must be construed to refer to the limits ,of the District as it exists on the date of the exercise of the powers conferred by the notification. If the orders of requisition were issued by Shri B. K. Chatterjee, l.A.S., Additional District Magistrate, then he had authority by virtue of the notification dated September 15, 1959, mentioned above. H The learned counsel, referring to the Acquisition Act, as it stood in 1959, and the definition of "collector" ("the Collector of ' A ll c S. M. NANDY V. WEST BENGAL (Sikri, C.J.) SOJ a district and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the State Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act) urged that the Additional District Magistrate was not "specially appointed." There is no force in thi; point. The notification of September 15, 1959, amounts to special appointment within the definition of "Collector." We referred the following question to the Constitution B~nch which has answered it in the negative :- "Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 is ultra vires the Constitution under Art. 19(1)(f) read with Art. 19(5) ?" In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.