9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of notice under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. 2. Public purpose in requisitioning the land. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements. 4. Validity of acquisition and transfer of land. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Proper Service of Notice under Section 3 of the Act: The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 3 of the Act. The writ petitioners, who purchased the land in 1988, had applied for mutation in 1990, but the mutation certificate was issued only in 1995. The High Court observed that the authorities should have made inquiries to ascertain the real owners and that the writ petitioners were entitled to notice under Section 3(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the provisions of service of notice stood complied with when notices were served on the persons recorded as owners in the Record of Rights maintained under Section 50 of the WB Land Reforms Act. The Court emphasized that the Collector was justified in relying on the official record and was not required to make a roving inquiry into ownership. 2. Public Purpose in Requisitioning the Land: The Division Bench held that the purpose for which the requisition was made was not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act and that the exercise of power was a colorable exercise. The Supreme Court, however, found that the requisition and subsequent acquisition of the land were indeed for a public purpose. The Court noted that the land was requisitioned for constructing a housing complex to provide better living conditions, which aligns with the objectives of the Act. The Court also highlighted the acute shortage of housing and the State's duty to provide shelter, especially to low and middle-income groups. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The High Court observed that the Act did not provide for the application of the principles of natural justice and that its provisions had to be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court, however, found that the procedural requirements were met. The Court noted that the requisition order was issued on April 2, 1992, and the gazette notification for requisition was published on July 22, 1994. The Court also referred to the amendments to the Act and found that they did not affect the validity of the requisition and acquisition in this case. 4. Validity of Acquisition and Transfer of Land: The Supreme Court examined the process of requisition, acquisition, and transfer of the land. The land was requisitioned on April 2, 1992, acquired on July 22, 1994, transferred to the Housing Board on December 8, 1994, and finally placed at the disposal of the Bengal Peerless Development Company Ltd. The Court found that the acquisition and transfer were valid and in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the Housing Board and the joint sector company were acting under the supervision and control of the State Government, ensuring that the public purpose was served. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The Court found that the service of notice was proper, the requisition and acquisition were for a public purpose, procedural requirements were met, and the acquisition and transfer of land were valid. The Court emphasized the importance of providing housing to low and middle-income groups and upheld the actions of the State Government and the Housing Board.
|
