WEST BENGAL SETTLEMENT KANUNGOE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. Vs. BELLA BANERJEE
LAWS(CAL)-1951-8-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 14,1951

West Bengal Settlement Kanungoe Co -Operative Credit Society Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
BELLA BANERJEE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RADHARAMAN DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1953-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS KEDWAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1953-5-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HARRIES, C.J. - (1.)THE petitioners in these two cases had applied to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution praying that the records of two suits pending before a learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore should be transferred to this Court for the decision of certain constitutional points which were said to arise in the suits. The records were in due course transferred to this Court and this Bench heard the parties on the constitutional questions involved in the suits.
(2.)THE suits arose out of acquisitions of property made by the West Bengal Government under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. It was suggested on behalf of the opposite parties that the whole of this Act was 'ultra vires' and if such was not the case that three provisions of the Act were 'ultra vires.' This Bench eventually held in a judgment delivered on March 22, 1951 that the whole of the Act was not 'ultra vires.' It further held that a portion of Section 8 proviso (b) of the Act was 'ultra vires', but as the offending portion was severable from the remainder of proviso (b) of Section 8 the whole proviso was not 'ultra vires.'
It was further contended that two other portions of Section 8 of this Act were 'ultra vires' namely, the opening portion of Section 8 which is in these terms: 'A declaration under section 6 shall be conclusive evidence that the land in respect of which the declaration is made is needed for a public purpose' and the Explanation to proviso (a) of this section which reads as follows: 'For the purposes of this clause the decision of the Provincial Government as to whether any land is or is not waste or arable land shall be final.'

(3.)AT the previous hearing, it is now clear, that there was a misunderstanding as to the position taken by the opposite parties with regard to these impugned portions of Section 8. The Bench understood that it was not suggested in the cases that the purposes for which the lands were being acquired were other than a public purpose, and further that it was not suggested that the State Government had described any of the land which they had taken possession of or had sought to possess as other than what in fact it was.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.