1986 (2) TMI 335 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the land acquisition notification.
3. Determination of public purpose under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948.
4. Allegations of mala fide intentions and colorable exercise of power by the authorities.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Writ Petition:
The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the challenge to the notification was "hopelessly barred by time." The notification under Section 4 was published on March 28, 1957, and the declaration under Section 6 followed on January 4, 1962. The writ petition was filed on March 26, 1964, after a lapse of more than two years and two months. The respondents did not provide any satisfactory explanation for this delay, leading the Single Judge to decide that the discretionary powers under Article 226 should not be exercised in their favor.

2. Validity of the Land Acquisition Notification:
The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge's decision, both on the question of delay and on the merits. The Division Bench held that the letters discovered during the inspection of records did not even remotely suggest that the purpose of the acquisition was for the "settlement of immigrants" but was for the establishment of a hospital for crippled children by the Society. The Division Bench concluded that the acquisition was made in bad faith to deprive the appellants of compensation as on the date of notification.

3. Determination of Public Purpose under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948:
The Supreme Court examined whether the notification and the land acquisition proceedings were bad as found by the Division Bench. Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'public purpose' to include the settlement of immigrants, establishment of towns, model villages, agricultural colonies, creation of better living conditions, and improvement and development of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and industries. Section 8(1)(b) specifies that the market value for compensation should be based on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, with certain conditions for land acquired for public purposes specified in Section 2(d)(i).

4. Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions and Colorable Exercise of Power by the Authorities:
The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' contention that 'settlement' and 're-settlement' were different, stating that the intent was to provide habitation and other amenities to those displaced from across the border. The Court examined letters indicating that the land was to be handed over to the Society of Experimental Medical Sciences for constructing a hospital for crippled children. The Court held that the proposed hospital was intimately connected with the rehabilitation process, as providing medical facilities is an important facet of rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that providing a hospital for crippled children falls within the concept of 'rehabilitation of displaced persons' and that the notification could not be faulted on the grounds that the purpose disclosed in the letters was different from the public purpose disclosed in the notification.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored that of the Single Judge. The Court concluded that the establishment of a hospital for crippled children falls within the idea of settlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons, and the notification could not be faulted on the grounds of mala fide intentions or colorable exercise of power. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.