M.K.Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated April 15, 1988 passed in C.R. No. 1080(W) of 1985 whereby a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by Howrah Mills Company Limited, the respondent No.1 herein, and quashed an order of requisition dated July 17, 1985 made under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 ('Act' for short). By order, the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah, requisitioned a land owned by the respondent No.1 and in occupation of Messrs. Remington Rand of India Limited, the appellant herein, for the purpose of providing proper facilities for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for creating employment opportunities to the people. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.
(2.) By a registered deed dated September 16, 1959, the respondent No. 1 granted lease of a part of its premises, where it runs a jute mill, to the appellant-Company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing typewriters and office equipments, for a period of 20 years commencing from September 1, 1959. Since then, the appellant is running a factory in the demised premises, with 1850 employees on its pay-roll. A few months before expiry of the lease-in February, 1979 to be precise-the respondent No.1 served a notice upon the appellant asking it to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises immediately on the expiry of the lease and on the latter's failure to comply with the demand, filed a suit for eviction in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Howrah on April 21, 1980. Thereafter, on November 24, 1984, the respondent No.1 made an application in this Court under clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of the suit and its expeditious hearing on the ground that its proceeding was being unnecessarily and unjustifiably delayed in the Court below. This Court allowed that application by its order dated May 13, 1985 and listed the suit for final hearing on May 28, 1985. On that date, the appellant moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed. In course of the hearing of the amendment application, the learned trial Judge inquired as to whether the suit could be settled by the parties through grant of a fresh demise at an enhanced rate of rent, fixed on the basis of the market rate, and adjourned the matter to enable the parties to effect a settlement, if possible. Pursuant thereto, the parties tried to settle the matter but could not. Before, however, the suit could be taken up for final hearing, consequent upon such failure, the impugned order of requisition was made and symbolical possession of the suit premises was given to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.1 filed the writ petition.
(3.) In allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge held-(i) that the power under section 3 (1) of the Act could not be invoked as the conditions precedent for exercising the same were wholly absent in the case in hand ; (ii) that the order of requisition was passed in colourable exercise of power under section 3 ( 1) of the Act to make the suit for eviction infructuous ; (iii) that the power of requisition under the Act could be invoked for a public purpose, which was of a transitory character and, as such, it could not be exercised in the instant case, as the need herein was of a permanent nature; (iv) that the elaborate procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire property for a private company could not be bypassed; and (v) that the order of requisition was not served upon the respondent No.1, the admitted owner of the premises in question, before taking symbolic possession of the same and, therefore, all actions taken pursuant to the order of requisition were bad in law.;