B.N.Banerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against a notification under Section 4 and a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of a large tract of land with the apparent purpose of establishment of a modem slaughter house. The case was argued, on behalf of the petitioners, with a good deal of political fervour, not quite appropriate before a Court of law. In showing cause, the respondents took up an attitude of bureaucratic infallibility, which was unhelpful in resolving the dispute. I, therefore, asked Mr. Jajneswar Majumdar, the learned Additional Government Pleader, to help me as amicus curiae. His arguments were more helpful than the lines of argument adopted (sic) on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of (sic) respondents.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the present dispute are hereinafter briefly recounted. On February 18, 1960, there was published, in the Calcutta Gazette, a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, whereby a large number of plots of land, measuring in all 106.19 acres, in village Mrigala, Police station Chanditala, District Hooghly were notified for acquisition "for a public purpose, not being a purpose of the Union, namely, the establishment of a modern slaughter-house". The notified plots were described in two schedules -- Schedule "A" containing plots which were said to be waste and arable and Schedule "B" containing plots other than waste and arable. In the notification it was further stated as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, the Governor is pleased to direct that the provisions of Section 5A of the said Act shall not apply to the waste and arable land described in schedule "A" below to which in the opinion of the Governor the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable." The petitioners, who are fifty-three in number, allege that they are the owners of the majority of the plots included in the schedules to the notification arid that they use to utilise the plots in cultivation. They say further that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality until much too late and they knew nothing of the notification until the substance thereof was published in the locality and claims for compensation were invited. On making enquiries thereafter, they came to know that there bad been a declaration, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated March 3, 1960, in respect of the notified schedule "A" land only. By reason of the belated publication of the substance of the notification and the wrongful application of the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, they allege, they were illegally deprived of their right to make objection to the land acquisition.
(3.) The petitioners challenge the acquisition of the land on various grounds. They say that the establishment of a slaughter-house is not and cannot be a public purpose. They further say that in the absence of legislative sanction the executive authority of the state is not competent to engage in the business of a slaughter house and compulsorily to acquire land therefor. They also say that the provision of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is void under Articles 13 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and is not saved by Article 19(5) of the Constitution. They say, lastly, that the purpose of acquisition was beyond the spirit and intendment of Article 48 of the Constitution and should not be upheld as a public purpose.;