P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) If France had once been the inspiration of European culture, French Chandernagore can at least sun be described as a prolific source here of Indian Constitutional law. Numerous cases have come to the Court from what used to be the French Settlement of Chandernagore and their decisions now enrich the constitutional law of India. The petitioners in this case from Chandernagore challenge the validity of a requisition of land under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948). If the decayed City gates of former French Chandernagore still display the three famous ideals of the French Republic from out of the French Revolution, "Liberte, Egalite and. Fraternite", this petition from Chandernagore, by a strange irony of fate, claims neither equality, nor fraternity with the rest of India. This petition claims that this West Bengal statute should be excluded from what was formerly known as the french Chandernagore, but now an integral part of the territory of the independent Republic of India.
(2.) The orders of requisition against which the present complaint is made in the petition are issued by the collector of Hooghly dated the 9th September, 1960 and 10th October, 1960. They are issued under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. Each of them recites that in the opinion of the Collector of Hooghly it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the com. inanity and for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation, drainage etc. for extension of Sub-Divisional Hospital, at Chandernagore to requisition the lands described there, it recites also the Notification No. 3775 L.A. (P. W. dated 11-548) published in the Calcutta Gazette Part I, of the 27th May, 1948 at page 682, which authorises the Collector of Hooghly to exercise the power conferred by Section 3(1) of the Act of 1948. After recital of these facts the Collector issues the order for requisition.
(3.) Mr. Qutta, the learned Advocate appearing tor tne Petitioners challenges the order of requisition on the ground that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, has not been introduced to Chandernagore, According to his submission the only door by which this pre-Constitution West Bengal statute could nave entered Chandernagore is Section 17 of the Chandernagore Merger Act, 1954 (Act 36 of 1954 of Indian Parliament), mat section provides as follows:-- "17. Extension of laws to Chandernagore All laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in, Chandernagore." (Mr. Dutta's main argument on this point is that this west Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 is not a law which answers the test of this word 'generally employed in Section 17 of the Act as quoted above. No doubt the expression used is 'all laws'. Obviously all laws are not extended which are not of "general" application, such as the Calcutta Improvement Act or the Calcutta Municipal Act which apply only to Calcutta. No doubt Section 17 of the Chandernagore Merger Act, 1954 does not lead to that absurd consequence that even the Calcutta Improvement Act and the Calcutta Municipal Act apply to Chandernagore. Mr. Dutta drew inspiration for this point from such decisions of this Court as Tulsi Charan Bairagi v. Debendra Nath Sil, 1958 (1) Cal LJ 149. It was held that neither the Calcutta Thika Tenancy .Act of 1949 nor tne West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act was an Act applicable generally all over West Bengal as contemplated in Section 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act Of 1954, and, therefore, those statutes did not extend to Chandernagore. The basis of the view expressed there is that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act was applicable only to Calcutta and suburbs and to the Municipality of Howrah, and theretore, was not a piece of legislation applicable "generally" an over West Bengal. Similarly the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act which was not applicable to Calcutta and certain suburbs thereof and the Municipality of Howrah was not a statute of "general" application as contemplated in Section 17 cf the Chandernagore (Merger) Act of 1954.;