- (1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a firm and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are its partners with two others. The petitioner No. 1, according to its case, is a manufacturer of paints, enamel and varnishes with wide reputation in business and sales upto the year ending 1970-71 amounted to over Rs. 37 lakhs. The petitioner firm has a factory at Alambazar which is a lease-hold property end the lease-hold interest of the firm in the aforesaid property is facing expiry. As there is no scope for further extension, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 purchased about ten bighas of land in mouza Kusaigachi, P.S. Chanditola for a consideration of about Rs.46,000 on the basis of a registered conveyance dated February 10, 1967. The names of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, who own 80% share in the said firm petitioner No. 1, were duly mutated in respect of the said lands and rent was being duly paid. The lands are situate near the National High way by-pass No. 2 known as Delhi Road. The petitioner No. 1 was to set up its factory on the said lands and the petitioner have been trying for access to the said road from the said lands which is being sanctioned. The petitioner No. 1 also has been trying to have some loan arrangement with the State Bank of India for construction of a new factory in the said premises and the proposal is under consideration. Such factory will also provide employment to a large number of people. The petitioners came to know from their vendors about the requisition of lands under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 in or about April 22, 1071. No notice of the said requisition was given to the petitioners and they were deprived of all opportunities, far less reasonable opportunity, of representation to the State Government against the said requisition. In that state of affairs the petitioners moved this Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and Rule, being C. R. No. 2069(W) of 1971 was issued. This Rule was disposal of by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. on February 7, 1972 on concession that the order of requisition was illegal and invalid. The Rule was made absolute accordingly.
(2.) Immediately thereafter on February 19, 1972 the petitioner No.1 was served with an order of requisition dated February 10, 1972 of the said lands along with others lands. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were not served with any copy of this order. It was contended that the requisitioning authority was bound to serve the order on the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 who are the admitted owners of the lands for giving them reasonable opportunity of making representation against the requisition. It was further contended that the Act, in so far as it does not provide for a hearing before the order of requisition is passed, was ultra vires and the order of requisition was also bad. It was also contended that the order of requisition was a colourable exercise of power for depriving the petitioners of the benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners also contended that the requisitioning authority was bound to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners for a hearing of their case against the proposed requisition. The ground of requisition as alleged was for establishment of a dairy by taking the disputed lands which, the petitioners contended, could be done at any other suitable place, the purpose of the present requisition being one to deprive the petitioners from carrying on their business on their acquired lands.
(3.) On the above allegations the petitioners moved this Court for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel, withdraw or recall the order of requisition dated February 10, 1972 and to forbear from giving effect to the same. The Rule was issued on February 21, 1972 with an interim order forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the order of requisition and from utilizing the land for other purposes for a period of four weeks. On interim order was continued and the application was directed to be heard along with the main Rule.;