9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the last forty years for growing high class vegetables. The petnr. has also erected a building on the said lands consisting of six rooms out-of which four rooms are let out to tenants & two rooms are occupied by the servants & workmen of the petnr. In that land there is also a cow-shed where the petnr. has kept cattle for the purpose of his cultivation. There are also two tanks on the said land where the petnr. rears fishes for sale & for domestic consumption. There are large numbers of Mango trees, Cocoanut Groves, Jack Fruit trees & Guava trees from the produce of which the petnr. derives a large annual income. As a result of certain officers of the resps having entered into the said, lands & having bored into the subsoil of the said land & having caused extensive damages to the standing crops the patnr. made enquiries & come to know that a Notfn No 3642 L. Dev. appeared in the Calcutta Gazette of 20-4-1950 to the effect that the said lands of the petnr. were likely to be required under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development & Planning Act (Act XXI [21] of 1948). The petnr. was, however, not served with any individual notice of the purported acquisition. By another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that it is not at all clear as to who is to decide as to which portion & to what extent the Land Acquisition, Act will apply to the acquisition made under the Act. The matter is lefts to the determination of somebody else. The requirements of Article 31 are that everything is to be specified--the manner, the principles & the form of compensation, There should be no scope or room for any inference & mere reference to another Act containing provisions for compensation or incorporation of such Act by mere words of incorporation is not sufficient compliance with the Constitution. Mr. Kar further argues that if subsequently the Land Acquisition Act is repealed the provisions for compensation will be totally gone & in consequence the present Act XXI [21] of 1948 will also be deprived of the benefit of the provisions of compensation contained in the Land Acquisition Act. 7. These arguments of Mr. Kar though ingenious are however without any substance. Legislation by incorporation is of common occurrence. The words "so far as may be, apply" in Section 8, West Bengal Act XXI [21] of 1948, are common words of legislation by incorporation, & is an expression interchangeable with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortions of the statute as have been incorporated into another statute. If the original Act is repealed the incorporated section or sections still operate in the later Act. (See (a) Clarke v. Bradlaugh, (1881) 8 Q B. D. 63: (51 L. J. Q. B. 1), which has been affirmed in (b) Jenkins v. Great Central Railway (1912) l K. B. 1 : (81 L. J. K. B. 24), per Lord Coleridge J. and (c) Secretary of State v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society 58 I. A. 259 : (A.I.R. (18) 1931 P. C. 149). 13. It was next contended by Mr. Kar that property of a private individual can only be acquired in public interest or for a public purpose as appears from Article 19(5) & Article 31(2) of the Constitution. It however, appears from the Notfn. issued in this case that the lands are required for "the settlement of immigrants who have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their control." This, it is submitted, is rot a public purpose as the immigrants are not citizens of India & lands taken for their use & enjoyment cannot be said to be taken for a public purpose. 14. This argument of Mr. Kar must be rejected on the simple ground that the decision of the Govt. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LJ 1383: "it the Legislation is not directly in respect of any of the subjects mentioned in Article 19 but as a result of the operation of other legislation any rights guaranteed by the sub-clauses in Article 19(1) are abridged the question of the application of Article 19 does not arise." The contents & subject-matters of Articles 19 & 31 are not the same & they proceed to deal with the rights covered by their respective words from totally different angles. Article 19 should be read as a separate complete Article. The judgment of Das J. at p. 113 also makes the position quite clear. This view of the reading of Article 19 is reaffirmed in the subsequent case of Charanjit Lal v. Union of India, [1950] 1 SCR 869 & the subsequent paras, & also in a decision of this Ct. reported in 87 Cal. L. J. 140 by Harries C. J. & Banerjee J. (Sudhindra Nath v. Sailendra Nath). 17. It was also argued by Mr Kar that the Notfn. No. 3644 dated 4-4-1950 is illegal & bad as it is not made in accordance with the provisions of West Bengal Act XXI [21] of 1948. It is argued that the declarations Under Sections 4 & 7 of the Act were made simultaneously & this is not permissible. The argument a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
