COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA Vs. PULIN BEHARI MONDAL
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA
PULIN BEHARI MONDAL
Click here to view full judgement.
M.M.Dutt, J. -
(1.)This appeal is at the instance of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and it is directed against an order dated October 3, 1969 of D. Basu, J. By the said order Civil Rule No. 2204(W) of 1967 out of which this appeal arises, was made absolute.
(2.)The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, being notification No. 12548 L. A. (P. W.) dated July 28, 1967 in respect of several plots of land belonging to different persons and measuring 26.15 acres. The land of the respondents Nos. 1 to 15 who were the petitioners in the Rule out of which this appeal arises, has also been included in the notification. It is stated in the notification that the said 26.15 acres of land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for the establishment of Haldia Dock at the expenses of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta.
(3.)The respondents and other groups of persons challenged the legality and validity of the notification by separate petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereupon a number of Rules were issued on the said petitions including the said Civil Rule No. 2204(W) of 1967. It appears from the judgment of D. Basu, J. that at the hearing of the Rules the following points were urged on behalf of the respondents and the petitioners in different Rules :-
(I) Each of the petitioners whose lands are sought to be acquired under the impugned notification, personally cultivates his land and that the quantity in possession of each being less than the ceiling laid down in the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Ac'. 1953 such land cannot be acquired unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof as provided for in the proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution. (II) There were certain irregularities in the matter of hearing objections under Section 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which vitiated the Acquisition proceedings. (III) The impugned notification is invalid in the absence of a declaration by the Central Government as required to be made under Section 58 (1) of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890. (IV) The acquisition of land for a Dock is a purpose of the Union and that the Slate Government is not competent to acquire ihe land on behalf of the Union.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.