- (1.) These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated May 27, 1975 in FMA Nos. 1021-25/78.
(2.) It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in these cases. Suffice it to state that notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, the Act) was published on May 14, 1956 for reclamation of the fisheries in the lands comprising cadastral plots enumerated in the notification, of an extent admeasuring more or less 8760.53 acres. Declaration under S. 6 was published on January 5, 1971 declaring that the land for the reclamation of the Southern Salt Lake area was published. We are concerned presently to an extent of 1495.93 acres only. It was contended in the High Court and also repeated by Dr. S. Ghosh, learned senior counsel ,that the "land", as defined under S. 3(a) does not include fisheries; that is made explicit by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1981 bringing within the ambit of the word land. It would indicate that the authorities have understood that the Act does not apply to acquisition of the fisheries rights and, therefore, the acquisition was without authority of law. In support thereof, Dr. Ghosh placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Pasupati Roy v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 Calcutta 99 and State of West Bengal v. Suburban Agriculture Dairy and Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. ((1993) 4 Suppl. SCC 674 paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 16) and in State of West Bengal v. Shebaits of Iswar Shri Saradiaya Thakurani, AIR 1971 SC 2097 at 2098 para 3. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contentions of the learned counsel. The expression land includes benefits to arise out of land and, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Tank fisheries cannot survive independent of the tank and there cannot be a tank without the land. Therefore, the expression land is required to be understood in that perspective when the tank fisheries are sought to be acquired. Tank fisheries thereby would be a benefit to arise out of the land. Thereby the word land should be understood to have been covered by the elongated definition since it defines with inclusiveness that the tank fisheries is a benefit to arise out of land.
(3.) It is then contended that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and, therefore, the Notification is bad in law, we find no force in the contention. It is seen that the declaration under S. 6 expressly mentions that the acquisition was for reclamation of the Salt Lake area. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 6 of the Act gives conclusiveness to the public purpose.;