1958 (8) TMI 60 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the requisition order under Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.
2. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the requisition order under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.
4. Procedural irregularities in serving the requisition notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Requisition Order under Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932:
The petitioners argued that the requisition of the land was invalid as it contravened Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, which mandates that the State Government may acquire land for municipal purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, upon request from the municipal commissioners. The court found that the requisition was not for a municipal scheme but a State scheme implemented by the Public Health Department. The requisition was thus treated as a State requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and not under Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.

2. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the Act was ultra vires as it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. The court analyzed whether the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions. It was noted that the Act did not provide for objections or hearings, allowed delegation of powers to any person, and lacked an appeal mechanism, making it potentially arbitrary. However, the court concluded that in cases of substantial deprivation of property, Article 31, which deals with the right to property and compensation, was applicable, not Article 19. The requisition under the Act was deemed to constitute substantial deprivation, thus falling under Article 31.

3. Validity of the Requisition Order under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948:
The petitioners argued that the requisition order was invalid as it was not necessary in the opinion of the person making it, and the land was used for religious worship, which is protected under the proviso to Section 3(1). The court found that the Collector of Hooghly had the authority and formed the necessary opinion for the requisition. The court also determined that the land was not actually used for religious worship, as it was a vacant plot with a derelict latrine, and the dedication to the deity occurred after the survey for requisition. Thus, the requisition did not violate the proviso to Section 3(1).

4. Procedural Irregularities in Serving the Requisition Notice:
The petitioners raised two technical objections: the notice was not served on the deity, the actual owner, and the notice served was not properly endorsed by the Collector. The court acknowledged that the deity, as the owner, should have been served notice. It was also noted that the notice should be properly signed as per the rules. The court directed that the requisition proceedings should not continue without serving a properly signed notice on both the deity and the petitioner in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and the requisition order under it, rejecting the petitioners' constitutional and statutory objections. However, it mandated proper service of notice to the deity and the petitioner before proceeding further with the requisition. The Rule was discharged in part, and a writ of mandamus was issued to ensure compliance with procedural requirements.