M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of M. N. Roy, J. whereby the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on its application under Article 226 of the Constitution was discharged.
(2.) The appellant who is described as "12, I.C. Bose Road, Tenants' Association" challenged a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was preceded by a notification under section 4 of the said Act. The notification under section 4 was published on December 2, 1974. It was inter alia stated therein that the lands comprised in the premises Nos. 12 and 16, I. C. Bose Road were likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of the northern approach road in connection with the re-construction of the Buckland Bridge at Howrah at the expenses of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the C.M.D.A.). After hearing the objections filed by the interested persons including the tenants of the said premises under section 5A of the said Act, the declaration under section 6 was published on December 29, 1975. In the declaration also it was stated that the acquisition would be made at the expenses of the C.M.D.A.
(3.) It was contended by the appellant in the writ petition that the C.M.D.A. was neither a local authority nor a company, nor the money that would be spent by it for the acquisition of the lands comprised in the said premises formed part of the public revenues of the State Government as contemplated by the second proviso to section 6 (2) of the said Act and accordingly, the acquisition sought to be made by the declaration under section 6 was illegal, inoperative and void. At the hearing of the Rule Nisi, two preliminary objections were taken on behalf of the respondents, namely, that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the declaration under section 6 and that a majority of the members of the appellant having filed claims under section 9 of the said Act, they had waived their right to call in question the legality of the acquisition. The learned Judge upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents and held that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain a writ petition and that as most of its members filed claims for compensation under section 9, they had forfeited their right to challenge the acquisition. He also held that the C.M.D.A. was a local authority within the meaning of the second proviso to section 6(2) of the said Act read with section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act. Upon the said findings, he discharged the Rule and hence this appeal.;