- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) Substitution allowed. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated July 31, 1990 made in Appeal from Original Order No. T.3734/86.
(3.) The undisputed facts are that the premises bearing No.7, Chappel Road, Hastings, Calcutta was requisitioned on November 29, 1971 under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Bengal Act') due to Bangladesh War. The Indian Navy had taken possession thereof and has remained in possession of the said premises. Subsequently, it would appear, the respondents had filed Matter No. 1295/79 in the Calcutta High Court questioning the legality of the requisition. It would appear that proceedings were initiated as early as in 1975 for acquisition of the property and the correspondence between various Departments was going on. Notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on November 26, 1981. Enquiry under S.5-A was conducted. Thereafter, declaration under S.6 was published on November 25, 1982. The Writ petition pending in the High Court came up for hearing. A learned Judge by his order dated April 8, 1983 had held that though there was no public purpose for requisition under the Bengal Act, since the acquisition was initiated under the Act, since the acquisition was initiated under the Act, four months' time was granted for completing the award enquiry and to pass the award; in case of default, he directed the appellants to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents. In the meanwhile, the acquisition proceedings were completed by making award on September 21, 1983. Notice under S.12 was issued to the respondents on September 23, 1983. Thus the acquisition under the Act had become final. An oral application came to be made before the learned Judge for extension of time on July 22, 1983 since the time was to expire on August 8, 1983. But the learned Judge declined to extent the time by his order dated August 2, 1983. Since the possession was not delivered, the respondents had filed another writ petition in the High Court which the learned single Judge had dismissed on November 12, 1986. On appeal, in the impugned order the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge and issued mandamus as indicated in the order. The primary findings recorded by the Division Bench were that there was no public purpose and that the acquisition was mala fide.;