P.K. Goswami, J. - (1.) THIS Rule was obtained on 22 -3 -68 for quashing the order of the State Government dated 9th December, 1967, made under Section 6(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (Assam Act XV of 1964), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', whereby an area of 5 Bighas of land belonging to the petitioner company was acquired following an earlier requisition of the same by an order under Section 3(1) of the Act made on 5th November, 1966.
(2.) THE reason for requisition of the land followed by its acquisition is "for the purpose of construction of departmental office buildings etc., of the Public Health Engineer Department at Jorhat", which is admittedly a Government Department. The purpose is clearly a public purpose and Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not choose to say to the contrary. The learned Counsel, however, submits that Section 3(1) of the Act provides only for requisition for purposes, amongst others, 'for accommodation.' He, submits that there is nothing to indicate that accommodation for public purpose is intended under this section. We may read Section 3(1): If in the opinion of the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government it is necessary so to do, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for accommodation, transport, communication, irrigation, flood control and anti -erosion measures including embankment and drainage or for providing land individually or in, groups to landless, flood affected or displaced persons, or to a society registered under the Assam Co -operative Societies Act, 1949, or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, formed for the benefit and rehabilitation of landless, flood affected or displaced persons the State Government or the person so authorised, as the case may be, may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further order as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning: There is a provision of appeal under Section 3(3) and Mr. Bhattacharjee admits that no appeal was preferred against the order of requisition by the petitioner. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, public purpose being not indicated in the word 'accommodation mentioned in Section 3(1), this requisition is invalid. Says Mr. Bhattacharjee necessarily therefore the acquisition will also fall for the same reason. It is true that Section 3mentions the word "accommodation'' only and not accommodation for any public purpose as such and nothing is specified under that head to that effect. But the very object of the Act is to amend and consolidate the law for requisition and speedy acquisition of premises and land for certain public purposes. The preamble says, whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law for requisition and speedy acquisition of premises and land for certain public purposes. Even though, therefore, public purpose is not added to the word accommodation mentioned in Section 3(1), it is clear that accommodation which is not for public purpose will be foreign to the provisions of this Act. This is not a requisition where we are required to consider the acquisition of land for a private purpose. It is clear that the land has been acquired for a public purpose, namely accommodation of the Public Health Engineer Department. We do not find, therefore, that the order of acquisition is invalid in this case because Section 3does not specifically provide for requisition for the purpose of accommodation for public purpose. The purpose can be spelt out from the provision itself which details various other purposes relating to public purposes. Even, therefore, the words 'for public purpose' are not mentioned qualifying the word "accommodation'', it is implicit that that accommodation will be for the kindred kind of the other public purposes mentioned in Section 3(1). 3. Mr. Bhattacharjee next contends that there was an earlier correspondence and private negotiation for taking the land. That being so, the requisition and later acquisition is colourable. He in that context drew our attention to a decision of this Court in, AIR 1958 Ass 140 at p. 151, which was a case of acquisition of certain property for the Khadi Board which is admittedly not an institution belonging to Government. We do not see any wrong in the Government first trying to negotiate with the owner so that litigation may be avoided. That would not make the subsequent requisition and acquisition colourable under the law. This submission of the learned Counsel is also not acceptable to us.
(3.) IN the result, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs. M.C. Pathak, J.;