Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The Government of West Bengal by Order No. 14/74 Regn. dated April, 16 in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 had requisitioned the premises described as Messrs. Radha Films Studio at 51 Russa Road South. 1st Lane, Calcutta. It is not disputed that the purpose of the said requisition was for establishment of Television Studio at Calcutta. It is also not disputed that the Government had takes over possession of the said requisitioned properly and at present the Television Studio stands on the said premises.
(2.) The State Government by a Notification dated 1st June, 1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notified that the said premises was likely to be required for a public purpose, namely, for accommodating the Television Station, the Films Division and the Coloured Film laboratory. The petitioner claims to have filed an objection under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act against the said proposed acquisition. I find no substance in the allegation of the petitioner that without disposing of the laid objection under section 5(A) of the Act, the State Government had issued a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 25th January, 1976 in respect of tho said premises. The State respondent have produced the original records and find therefrom that the petitioner was the sole objector under section 5(A) of the Act. The same was fixed for hearing on 13th October, 1976 According to the Order Sheet maintained by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 13th October, 1976 the petitioner was heard and the matter was directed to be pat on 16th October, 1976. On 17th October, 1976 the report was placed in tho file and the same was forwarded to the State Government. In the above view, it already stated, the petitioner's objection under section 5(A) was heard and disposed of. Thereafter, the impugned declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. It may be also pointed out that the petitioner has not specifically impugned the said declaration under action 6 in the present writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner took a point in the writ petition that an acquisition under Land Acquisition Act of a property already under requisition was not permissible in law. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not seriously pressed the said point. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the added respondent No. 6 has placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Akola & Ors. v. Ram Chadra & Ors., reported in 1968 (1) S.C.R. 401. In the said case, the hod owned by the respondents were initially requisitioned under tho Bombay Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose. the respondents hid filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay challenging the validity of the said order on the ground that the Act wag a temporary Act. Therefore, the power would inhere to the Government only during the time it subsisted so an order passed for a permanent purpose could not be contemplated under the said Act. the High Court had accepted the said objection and quashed the order the Supreme Court had reversed the said decision, inter alia, holding that the power to requisition under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act could be exercised whether the, public purpose was temporary or not. the Supreme Court bad further observed at page 405 as follows:- "We do not also see any antithesis between the power to requisition and the power of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Neither of the two Acts contains any provision under which it can be said that if one is acted upon, the other cannot. Indeed, Part VI of the Land Acquisition Act provides for temporary occupation of waits or arable land needed for a public purpose or for a company and empowers the appropriate Government to direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for such purpose as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from the commencement of such occupation. Apart from these provisions in the Land Acquisition Act there are several State Acts which empower the appropriate Governments to acquire property which is subject ta requisitioning orders. If there is an emergency to must which the power to requisition is exercised there is nothing in the Act to prevent the authority at a subsequent to initiate proceedings in a suitable case for permanent acquisition. the exercise of power under the Requisitioning Act does not exhaust or make incompatible the exercise of power under the Land Acquisition Act. The initiation of proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act after requisitioning the lands under section 5 (1) of the Act does not and cannot mean abuse of the power under the provision of the Act. In our view the High Court was in error in holding that the power to requisition under the Act cannot be exercised whore the public purpose is not temporary or that the exercise of that power for the purposes of rehabilitation of flood sufferers was either in abuse of or unjustified under the Act." ;