PASHUPATI ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. -
(1.)The petitioners in these Rules have challenged the validity of the requisition orders made under the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965, on the ground that the said Act is a colourable piece of legislation and also in violation of Article 19 (I) (f) and (g) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 was enacted
"to provide for the requisition and speedy acquisition of fisheries for the purpose of improvement or development of such fisheries and supplying fish to the public therefrom. Under Section 2 (3) of the Act fishery means any land whereon water is confined naturally or artificially whether periodically or throughout the year for pisciculture or for fishing and includes a 'tank fishery' as defined in the explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act as also fish in such fishery or 'tank fishery' does not include a tank not exceeding one acre in area adjoining a homestead and used for purposes of irrigation or domestic purpose".
(3.)Mr. P. N. Mitra learned advocate for the petitioners 1ms submitted that the Act purports to requisition also the fish in the fisheries and tank fisheries although such fish is by its very nature incapable of requisition. The property in the fish is such that its requisition would really mean appropriation of the fish itself i.e. acquisition. Mr. Mitra has also submitted that the provisions in the Act for payments of compensation for requisitioned property is illusory. For these reasons, Mr. Mitra has asked me to pronounce the Act as a colourable piece of legislation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.