1951 (3) TMI 51 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Land Development & Planning Act, 1948.
2. Compliance with Article 31 of the Constitution regarding compensation.
3. Legitimacy of acquisition for public purpose.
4. Simultaneous declarations under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Land Development & Planning Act, 1948:
The petitioner argued that the West Bengal Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional as it infringes and is inconsistent with Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the Act is discriminatory, expropriatory, and constitutes unreasonable interference and imposes unreasonable and unwarranted restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioner as a citizen of India to acquire, hold, and dispose of property and carry on trade or business.

2. Compliance with Article 31 of the Constitution regarding compensation:
The petitioner contended that the Act contravenes Article 31 as it does not provide for the payment of compensation, nor does it fix the amount of compensation or specify the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given. The only section in the Act that touches on the question of compensation is Section 8, which states that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall "so far as may be, apply." The petitioner argued that this is not sufficient compliance with the Constitution.

The court, however, found these arguments to be without substance. It held that legislation by incorporation is common and that the words "so far as may be, apply" effectively incorporate the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the West Bengal Act. The court cited various precedents to support this interpretation, concluding that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are effectively written into the West Bengal Act, thus satisfying the requirements of Article 31.

3. Legitimacy of acquisition for public purpose:
The petitioner argued that the acquisition of land for the settlement of immigrants who have migrated into the State of West Bengal is not a public purpose as the immigrants are not citizens of India. The court rejected this argument, stating that the decision of the government as to the "public purpose" is conclusive and cannot be questioned in a court of law. The court cited various precedents to support this view and held that the acquisition of land for the settlement of refugees is indeed for a public purpose and within the competence of the government of the State of West Bengal.

4. Simultaneous declarations under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act:
The petitioner contended that the declarations under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act were made simultaneously, which is not permissible. The court found this argument to be substantial. It held that Section 4 lays down the manner in which the declaration of a notified area is to be made, and until publication in the Gazette, the declaration is not complete. In the present case, both declarations were published in the Gazette at the same time, which is not what is contemplated by the Act. The court concluded that the notification made under Section 6 read with Section 7 must be held to be invalid.

Conclusion:
The petitioner succeeded in part. The court cancelled Notification No. 3644 L. Dev. dated 4-4-1950 made under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act XXI of 1948, declaring it invalid. The rule was made absolute to this extent, with no order as to costs.