- (1.) THIS case, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, has been debated on a short question of interpretation. After issuing a notification under section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 194s (hereinafter referred to as the 'west Bengal Act'), whieh is at Annexure A to the Petition, that certain lands were likely to be needed for a public purpose namely, the settlement of immigrants into the State of West Bengal, the Governor has issued the impugned declaration under section 6 of that Act, which is at Annexure B, with respect to the disputed lands, of which the petitioner's claim to be the owners. The relevant recital in the declaration is as follows: "whereas it appears to the Governor that land is needed for a public purpose, namely, for the settlement of immigrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is hereby declared that for the above purpose pieces of land comprising cadastral survey plot. . . . . . are required. . . . . . . . This declaration is made under the provisions of section 6 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. "
(2.) THE order is signed "by order of the Governor, B. Chakravarty, Dy. Secy. ". s. 6 (1) - (la) of the Act is in these terms:- "6 (1) When a development scheme is sanctioned under subsection (2) of section 5 and the State Government is satisfied that any land in the notified area for which such scheme has been sanctioned is needed for the purpose of executing such scheme, a declaration to the effect that such land is needed for a public purpose shall, unless already made in pursuance of section 7, be made by the State Government l (a) When the State Government is satisfied, after taking into consideration any report submitted under sub-section (2) of section 4a, that any land in the notified area is needed for the public purpose special in sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of section 2, a declaration to the effect that such land is needed for the said purpose shall, (unless already made in pursuance of section 7), be made by the State Government. "
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the 'satisfaction' of the State Government not having been recited in the impugned declaration, it is ultra vires section 6 of the Act so that the declaration and all subsequent proceedings are invalid: On behalf of the Respondents, it has been urged in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that the words "it appears to the Governor" in the impugned declaration "have the same connotation as the words in section 6 which speaks of satisfaction of the State Government. " this, then, is the only point for determination in the instant case,-namely, whether it is necessary, in order that a declaration made under section 6 may be valid, that it must state that the Governor is 'satisfied instead 'of 'it appears to the Government'. The identity of the Governor with the State Government has not been questioned in view of the provisions of the General Clauses Act and the decision of this Court in (1) Gouripada v. S. Banerjee, A. I. R. 1953 Cal. 704. The question is, whether the words "it appears" comply with the requirement of section 6 of the West Bengal Act, before entering into that question, a legislative change in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on which the West Bengal Act professes, in the main, to be modelled, has to be noticed. The words 'it appears' are used in s, 4 (1) of that Act, S. 6 (1) of that Act, prior to 1923, also used the words 'it appears', but the word 'satisfied' was substituted by Act 38 of 1923, along with other words which are relevant:- "when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after consideration of the report, if any, made under section 5a, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed";