Alak Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment that my learned brother is about to deliver. In the circumstances which I shall presently indicate I agree that this appeal must fail.
(2.) The appellants are the owners of certain plots of land which were requisitioned under the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). On behalf of the appellants a point was taken that the order requisitioning their land without giving them a hearing was illegal. The Act does not contain any provision for giving notice to the owner of the land which is requisitioned. But it was argued that the principles of natural justice required that the owners of the land should be given an opportunity to show cause against the order of requisition. My learned brother has held that the statute by necessary implication has excluded the application of the principles of natural justice. A similar view appears to have been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabitri Bagaria v. State of West Bengal (F.M.A. 93 of 1972 decided on December 18, 1973) . Singly, I am bound to follow the judgment of the larger Bench. No useful purpose will, be served if I tried to examine the point for myself. But I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile the view expressed in the judgment of the Division Bench which is shared by my learned brother with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Nandi v. State of West Bengal reported in, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 961 . Regarding the validity of an order of requisition under the very same statute namely, Act II of 1948, the Supreme Court observed : "It is true that there is no express provision to make a representation against an order of requisition, but there is no bar to a representation being made after an order is served under section 3(2) of the Act. We have no doubt that if the representation raises a point which overrides the public purpose, it would be favourably considered by the State Government or other Government authorities as the case may be.
(3.) This observation seems to suggest that though the statute does not contain any express provision requiring an opportunity to be given to the owner of the land to make a representation, such a provision should be deemed as implied. If however the statute has by necessary implication excluded the application of the principles of natural justice then the authorities would have no power to entertain any representation that may be made after the service of the order of requisition under section 3(2) of the Act; unless of course the observation of the Supreme Court is construed not as an expression of opinion on the applicability of the principle of natural justice requiring the person affected to be given a hearing but as an expression of faith in the reasonableness of the executive Government.;