- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated august 10, 1970, by which the Rule nisi obtained by the appellant was discharged.
(2.)THE appellant purchased two plots of land C. S. Plots Nos. 646 and 647 in Khatian No. 202 and 203, Mouza joka, P. S. Behala, District 24-Pargana:. Before this purchase, the plots were affected by a notification under S. 4 and a declaration under S. 6 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After the declaration, the first respondent took recourse to the procedure prescribed by s. 17 (1) and (2) of the Act and under s. 17 (4) of the Act, an order was made by the first respondent that S. 5a of the Act would not apply. Thereafter, a notice under S. 9 of the Act was issued and thereupon the appellant obtained a rule Nisi in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the said notification and declaration. This Rule was discharged by the judgment and order under appeal.
(3.)THE first contention of Mr. A. K. Dutt for the appellant was that the acquisition was for setting up a permanent campus of the Indian Institute of management and as this was a purpose of the Union, the acquisition of the plots by the State of West Bengal was ultra vires its powers under the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on paragraph 9 and 10 of the petition, in which it was alleged that the purpose of acquisition namely, a permanent campus of the Institute of management was a purpose of the Union and was being carried out at the expenses of the Union. It is also alleged that the State Government is not competent to acquire lands for the said purpose, and therefore the notification, and the declaration are illegal, invalid and ultra vires. Paragraph 9 of the petition, however, has been verified as a submission and paragraph 10, though verified as based on information received from Jatindra Nath Mondal, is in itself a submission to Court. Leave was granted by the trial court for filing supplementary affidavits and the appellant filed such an affidavit which was affirmed on July 20, 1964. In paragraph 3 of this supplementary affidavit, it is stated that the Indian Institute of management has been set up by the government of India and was an organisation of the Central Government, and that the Institute was a national Institute for undertaking management, education and research relating to various aspects of business. To this affidavit is annexed an appeal by the Late Mr. Humayan Kabir, Minister of Scientific research and Cultural Affairs. There is no affidavit in support of this appeal, nor is there any statement in the supplementary affidavit of the appellant that the statements in the appeal are true.