Manas Nath Roy, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the occupier of a two storied building and the land at premises No. 2, Dover Lane, Calcutta-700029 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The recorded owner of the said premises at all material times, was one Dr. Jogeswar Srimany and the petitioner became the occupier of the same after the former occupier, the Garrison Engineer, to whom the said premises was let out, had left. It has been stated by the petitioner that after the death of the erstwhile owner, Dr. Jogeswar Srimany, he has been paying rents to the estate of the said deceased. The petitioner has also stated how and in what manner he came to possess the said premises. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 5, Birendra Nath Mohanty, was occupying a room in the said premises, with his permission and excepting that room, the whole of the said premises was in his possession. It should be noted that the Rule, for non-compliance with the Courts order dated 29th January 1981, has been discharged against the said Respondent No. 5.
(2.) It was the further case of the petitioner that although the Garrison Engineer had already left the said premises and this fact was known to all the authorities concerned, an order under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1971 Act), was issued to the said Respondent No. 5, requiring him to vacate the portions of the said premises, as in his possession, within a stipulated time. The said Respondent No. 5 took no steps against such proceedings, but the petitioner, who was not a party to the same, preferred an appeal under section 7 of the said 1971 Act. Such appeal was admitted, considering the existing interest of the petitioner in the said premises. The said Appeal was P. P. Act Appeal No. 6 of 1975.
(3.) It has been stated that during the pendency of the appeal and on the basis of the order passed thereon, when admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the said premises excepting the portion, which was occupied by the Respondent No. 5, the impugned notice under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and more particularly under section 3(1) of the same, was issued by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, Respondent No. 2 on 2nd September 1975, stating that the Additional Land Acquisition Collector, Respondent No. 3, had taken possession of the said premises on 3rd September 1975 and made over such possession to Respondent No. 5. This act or action, the petitioner has stated, was done or taken, without serving the said order or any notice on the owner or on him, as the recorded occupier and as such, it has been claimed that there has been non-compliance with the said Act or the Rules as framed thereunder, which in their turn also made the proceeding void and irregular, but vitiated the same also, apart from the fact, that the entire proceeding, for such inaction should be considered as mala fide and taken in colourable use and exercise of power. It was also the further case of the petitioner that the purpose of requisition would not come within the meaning of the purposes as mentioned in the said Act. It was specifically contended that the purposes as mentioned, would not come within or would be covered by the words "maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community". It was also and the specific submissions of the petitioner that to set up an information-cum-reception centre, would not constitution a purpose, which would bring the requisition, within the essential prerequisites as required under the said Act and the purposes of the requisition, in this case, were not admittedly a purpose, essential to the life of the community, within the meaning of section 3(1) of the said Act.;