Supreme Court of India
COLLECTOR OF 24 PARGANAS AND ORS.versusLALIT MOHAN MULLICK & ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 15
- Decided
- 13 February 1986
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- M P THAKKAR
Holding
The acquisition for a hospital for crippled children of displaced persons falls within the public purpose of settlement/rehabilitation of immigrants, making the notification valid.
Summary
The State issued a notification under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 to acquire land for the "resettlement of immigrants" and later declared the acquisition. The landowners discovered, through internal letters, that the land was actually intended for a hospital for crippled children run by the Society of Experimental Medical Sciences, and alleged the acquisition was made in bad faith. The High Court's Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, but the Division Bench set aside the notification, holding the purpose was different and the acquisition fraudulent. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the purpose of providing a hospital for displaced persons fell within the statutory definition of "settlement" of immigrants as a public purpose. It held that "settlement" includes rehabilitation, and that a hospital for crippled children of refugees is a facet of that rehabilitation, rendering the notification valid. The Court also rejected the argument that the terms "settlement" and "resettlement" create a distinction, and found no merit in the delay objection. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, restoring the Single Judge's order and quashing the Division Bench judgment.
Issues considered
- The purpose disclosed in the notification (settlement/resettlement of immigrants) is a public purpose under Section 2(d)(i) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948.
- Whether the actual purpose of constructing a hospital for crippled children falls within the public purpose of settlement/rehabilitation of immigrants.
- Whether the distinction between the terms "settlement" and "resettlement" invalidates the notification.
- Whether the petition is barred by the lapse of time under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23
- West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948s. 2(d)(i), s. 4, s. 6, s. 8(1)(b)
Subjects
public purposeland acquisitionsettlement of immigrantsrehabilitationbad faithdelay barWest Bengal Land Development and Planning Actcompensationhospital for crippled children
Judgment
271
A
COIµCTOR OP 24 PARGANAS AND ORS.
v.
LALIT MOllAll MULLICK. & ORS.
FEBRUARY 13, 1986
B
[M.P. THAKKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.]
West Bengal Land Development .and Planning Act, 1948 -
ss. 2(d)(i) and 4 - 'Settlement' of illlDigrants - Interpre-
tation of - Acquisition of 18nd - For the 'resettlement' of
illlDigrants - Construction of hospital for crippled children -
Whether 'Public purpose' • c
Words and phrases - 'Rehabilitation' - Meaning of.
A notification was issued for the acquisition of the
land belonging to the respondents under •· 4 of the West
D
Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 stating that
the land in question was needed for the public purpose for the
resettlement of illligrante who have lligrated into the State of
West Bengal. 'lhis was follolred by another notification under
s. 6 of the Act.
E
Later, on an inspection of the record of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, the tespondents came to know from
two letters, that the acquisition was not for the purpose
mentioned in the notification issued under s. 4, bUt for the
Society of Experimental Medical Science for construction of a
hospital for crippled children.
F
Finding that the real purpose of acquisition was
different from the one an,tioned in. the ncitification, the
respondents approached the Land Acquisition Authority
requesting them to cancel the notification and the land
acquiaition proceedings on the ground that they were lll&de
G
under colourable exercise of powers.
There being no reeponse the respondent• approached the
High Court under Article 226 to quash the notificat~n. A
} Single Judge held that the challenge to the Notification was
hopelessly time barred as the Writ Petition was filed after a
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
lapse of more than two years and two months from the date of ,_. ~
the Notification issued under s. 6, and since there was no
satisfactory explanation for this delay the discretionary
powers under Article 226 should not be exercised.
In appeal the Division Bench reversed the judgment, and
B held that the two letters which the respondents came across
during the inspection of the land acquisition records, did not
even remotely suggest that the purpose of the acquisition was
for "settlement of immigrants" but was for the establishment ·~
of a hospital for crippled children, and that the acquisition
proceedings were consequently in bad faith to deprive the
c respondents of compensation as on the date of Notification.
In appeal to this Court, on behalf of the State -
appellants, it was contended that the notification clearly
indicated that the purpose of the acquisition was to
rehabilitate displaced persons which was a public purpose and
0 it was neither proper nor necessary to go behind the Notifi- 'I ,.
cation in a challenge based on bad faith. On behalf of the
respondents, the appeal was contested on the ground that
'settlement' was not 'resettlement' and since the public
purpose shown in the notification is 'resettlement' s. 2(d)(i)
was not attracted.
E
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court and restoring that of the
Single Jndge.
lllUl: 1. Section 2(d)(i) of the West Bengal Land
F Developllll!llt Pla:ining Act, 1948 makes settlement of illlllligrants,
who have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of
circ:amtaneea beyond their control a public purpose. Under
a. B(l)(b) of the Act detel'llination of the S110unt of compen-
sation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act :ls
tlul • - aa under a. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
G 8-Yet, distinction 1a made in the section if the land is
acquired for public purpose specified in s. 2(d)(i), viz.
co.penaation abonld be restricted to the aarket value of the
lad. DI! tlle first day of December, 1946 and not more. [276F-H;
277 4)
H 2. Seetion 2(d)(i) speaks of 'settlement' of immigrants
wbile tlle notification Wider s. 4 speaks of 'resettlement' of
COLLECTOR OF 24. PGNS. v. L.M. MULLICK, [KHALID, J.] 273
A
_... ~ !migrants. 'l'he intention of the section is to settle those
... who lligrated to West Bengal from across the border. Whether
one mes the word 'settlement' or 'resettlement' , the intent
is clear, and that is to provide for habitation and to extend
other aenities to those who are displaced froa across the
border. [277 B-D) B
3. 'l'he real purpose of rehabilitation can be achieved
only if tboae wbo are songht to be rehabilitated are provided
with shelter, food and other lllll!Dities of life. (279 B-C)
4. No detailed discussion is necessary to bold that
puttiag np of a boapital, and in particular one for crippled c
children is one of the important facets of the concepts of ,
'rehabilitation' of displaced peraons and therefore to pr.,.,,ide
a hospital for disabled and crippled children of such
displaced persons COiie& within the concept of the idea of
'rehabilitation' and couaeqaently of 'settlellellt' of the
refugeea. (279 c-i!) · D
CIVIL APPELLATE .iuRISDICTION. : Civil Appeal No. 72 (N) of
1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1969 of the
Calcutta High Court in Original Order No. 298 of 1968. E
D.N. Mukherjee, G.S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu for the
Appellants.
Sankar Ghose, P.K. llukherjee for the Respondents.
• "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. This is an appeal, by certificate, against
the Judgment of a. Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
reversing the Judgment of a learned Single Judge. The matter
relates to land acquisition proceedings. The Collector of 24 G
Parganas and others are the appellants.
Under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and
Planning Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1948) (for short,
, t the Act), a notification dated March. 28, 1957 was issued in
· relation to property, being c.s.
Plot Nos. 84 and 86, belong- It•
. ing to the respondents. Declaration, under Section 6 of the
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
Act, dated January 4, 1962 followed. The earlier notification
stated that the above plots alongwith certain other plots were
likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. for the
re-settlement of immigrants who have migrated into the State
of West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their
control. The area involved in the proceedings is 3.85 acres,
B in extent. It appears that the respondents in this case; the
oiiner of the land, discovered after receipt of notice of
acquisition, on inspection of records at the office of the
Special Land Acquisit!.on Officer, Alipore, that the land was
required not for the purpose mentioned in the notification but
for the Society of Experimental Medical Science (India) for
c construction of a hospital for crippled children at the
expenses of the said Society. They then applied for-t:he copies
of the two letters which contained this disclosure. Finding
that the resl purpose of acquisition is different, from the
one msde in the notification, they addressed a letter to the
Land Acquisition authorities requesting them to cancel the
D notification and the land acquisition proceedings on the
ground that they were made under colourable exercise of
powers. There was no response. Hence they moved the Calcutta
High Court by writ petition CR No.36l(W) of 1964, to quash the
notification and the subsequent proceedings, on the ground
that the notification and the acquisition proceedings were
E mala fide, beyond the powers conferred by the Act in fraud of
those powers.
The writ petition first came up before a learned Single
Judge of the High Court. He held that the challenge to the
notification was hopelessly barred by time. The notification
F under Section 4, was published on 28.3.1957 and the succeeding ,l_
declaration under Sectl.on 6 on 4th January, 1962. The writ •
petition was filed only on 26.3.1964 - after lapse of more
than two years and two months. Since the respondentsdid not
give any satisfactory explanation for this delay the learned
Single Judge felt that the discretionary powers under Article
(; 226 should not be exercised in their favour. The learned
Single Judge also re>)elled the content.ion based on the plea
that the acquisition proceedi:igs were mala fide and in fraud
or in excess of the powers under the Act.
The respondents took the matter in appeal. A Di vision ...
H Bench of the High Court reversed the Judgment of the learned ·
COLLECTOR OF 24 PGNS. v. L.M. MULLICK, [KHALID, J.] 215
A
Single Judge both on the question of delay and on merits. It
was held that the letters, which the respondents came across
during the inspection of the records, did not even remotely
suggest that the purpose of the acquisition was for "settle-
ment of innnigrants" but was for the establishment of a hos-
pital for the crippled children by the Society •. It was held B
that the acquisition was made in bad faith to deprive the
appellants of the compensation as on the date of notification.
Hence the appeal..
The learned counsel for the appellants pleaded before us
that the approach of the Division Bench was totally unwarrant-
ed and that the Judgment was based on wrong premises. lie c
contended that the notification clearly indicated that the
purpose of the acquisition was to rehabilitate displaced
persons which was a public purpose and it was neither proper
nor necessary to go behind the notification io a challenge
based on bad faith.
D
We will now examine whether the notification and the
land acquisition proceedings are bad as found by the Divis.ion
Bench of the High Court. The Act that governs these pro!?eed-
ings is not the Land Acquisition Act but the Act mentioned
above. Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'public purpose' as
under :- E
2(d) "public purpose" includes -
(i) the settlement of innnigrants who have migrated
into the State of West Bengal on account of circum-
stances beyond their control, F
(ii) the establishment of towns, model villages and
agricultural colonies;
(iii) the creation of better living conditions. in
url>an and rural areas, and G
(iv) the improveinent and development of agricul-
ture, forestry, fisheries and industries;
•
but does not include a purpose of the Union; H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 l s.c.a.
A
Section 8(l)(b) is the other section thst hss to be taken
into account. This reads as follows:
"8(1) After making a declaration under Section 6, the
State Government may acquire the land and thereupon the provi-
sions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in this
B section referred to as the said Act), shall, so far as may be,
apply:
Provided that -
(a) .........
c
(b) in determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for land acquired in pursuance of this Act
the market value referred to in clause first of
sub-section (1) of section 23 of the said Act
shall be deemed to be the market value of the land
D on the date of publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) of section 4 for the notified
area in which the land is included subject to the
foll""ing condition, that is to say, if such market
value in relation to land acquired for the public
purpose specified in ·sub-clause (i) of clause (d)
E of Section 2, exceeds by any annunt the market
value of the land on the 31st day of December,
1946, on the assumption thst the land hsd been at
that date in the state in which it in fact was on
the date of publication of the said notification,
the annunt of such excess shall not be taken into
F consideration.
(2) ········~··················''
.Section 2(d)(i) makes the settlement of immigrants who
have migrated into the State of West Bengal on account of
G circumstances beyond their control, a public purpose. From
Section 8(l)(b) quoted above, we note thst the determination
of the annunt of compensation to be awarded for the land
acquired under the Act is the same as that under Section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act. However, the ~ection makes a
distinction if the land is acquired for a public purpose .,\-
H specified in Section 2(d)(i). When the land is acquired for a
COLLECTOR OF 24 PGNS, v. L.M. MULLICK, [KHALID, J,] 277
A
I -~urpose mentioned in that section, the compensation should be
restricted to the market value of the land on the 1st day of
December, 1946 and not more. It is this restriction on the
amount of compensation that is really the moving spirit behind
the writ petition and the challenge to the notification.
B
We may even at the outset reject a contention made by the
learned counsel for the respondents on the wordirig of section
2(d)(i) and the notification. Section 2(d)(i) speaks of
'settlement' of immigrants while the notification under
-I section 4 speaks of 're-settlement' of immigrants. The conten-
tion raised is that 'settlement' is not the same as
're-settlement', and since the public purpose shown in this c
notification is 're-settlement', Section 2(d)(i) is not
attracted. We wish to make it clear that this contention is
just an empty exercise on words. The intention of the section
is .to settle those who migrated to West Bengal from across the
border. They are to be settled in West Bengal. Whether one
-
D
-.:~st~~ ~~r~o·~~~~~~:n~:{ :::s:::;::~:~ ~~ ~~=:t!n~!~=~
to those who were displaced from across the border. Nothing
therefore turns, in our view, on t-he ,use of the. word
're-settlement' in the notification, though a serious attempt
is seen made in tile affidavit filed by the appellants to
explain that what was really meant was 'settlement' and not E
're-settlement'.
Now, what remains is the question whether the public
purpose mentioned in the notification is different from the
purpose to which it is proposed to be utilised, accepting the
_jlea of the respondent that the purpose is the construction of F
_. hospital for crippled children by 'the Society. We will refer ,
to the letters 9n which strong reliance is placed by the
' respondents • .The first letter is dated 6.9.1962, from the
Refugee Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Bengal, to the
Assistant Secretary, R.R. & R. Department. The subject is
mentioned as "Allotment 0£ land in Mouza Palpara, P.S. Bara- G
nagar, Distt. 24 Parganas, to the Society of Experimental
Medical Sciences, India, for construction of a hospital for
the crippled children." The letter states that an area of 1.10
acres of land out of a total declared area of 3.85 acres has
b'en decided to be handed over to the Society of Experimental
Medical Sciences'· India, for construction of a hospital for H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
crippled children. The rest of the declared area will be i-
handed over to the Society on receipt of the same from the ·
I
Collector after award. From this letter it is clear that •the
proposed hospital for crippled children has something to do
intimately with the rehabilitation process and that is why the
letter is written by the Refugee Rehabilitation Conmissioner
B to the Assistant Secretary, R.R. &R. Department.
The second letter is dated 28.11,1962, by the Assistant
Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Collector, ~
24 Parganas. This states that the entire land measuring 3,85
acres has been decided to be handed over to the Society for
C the purpose stated above. The heading of the· letter is
"Government of ·West Bengal, Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation
Department". This letter also shows that the acquisition of
the entire land is intimately connected with the activities of
the relief and rehabilitation department.
D The learned counsel for the appellant inv.ited our...,
attention to two other letters produced along with the Special
Leave Petition. The lat letter is dated 3.1.1963 from the
Under Secretary to the Gov.ernment of India to the llony.
-
General Secretary, Society of Experimental Medical Sciences,
India, Calcutta, and the subject is: " .... setting up of a
E hospital for crippled children and a general hospital to
develop medical facilities in the interest of the displaced
persons from East Pakistan." From this letter it is evident
that the' matter was known to the Government of India also and
that the acquisition proceedings related not only to 3,85
acres involved in this acquisition, but to a 111.1ch larger area,
F for 11 hospital for crippled children as well as a general,i...,
hospital. This letter shows that the land will be allotted to •
the Society on a 99 years lease and that four bloeks of 64
tenements in the colony will be allotted to the Society on '
rental basis for acconm:idating the hospital staff, All these
correspondence taken together show that the State wanted a
G much bigger area for re-habilitation of displaced persona from
East Pakistan.. The respondents can succeed only if they can
establish to the satisfaction of the Court that putting up of
a hospital for crippled children is not a public purPQBe
connected with the rehabilitation of displaced persons. To our
pointed question to the respondent's counsel whether tlwl
H construction of a hospital for crippled children is a public
purpose or not, he admitted, after ·some hesitation, that it
COLLECTOR OF 24 PGNS. v. L.M. MULLICK, [KHALID, J.] 279
A
~was a public purpose. The next -Step is to ascertain .whether
- putting up of such a hospital has something to do with
rehabilitation of displaced persons.
In Collins Dictionary of the English Language, the mean-
ing for the word 'rehabilitate' is given as "to help a person B
(who is physically or mentally disabled or has jtist been
released from prison) to readapt to society or a new job as by
vocational guidance, retraining or therepy •••••• ". By
rehabilitation what is meant is not to provide shelter alone.
-'\ The real purpose ·of rehabilitation can be achieved only if
·those who are sought to be rehabilitated are. provided with
shelter, food and other necessary amenities of life. It would c
be too much to contend, m.ich less to accept, that providing
medical facilities would not co)llE! within the. concept of the
word 'rehabilitation'. No detailed discuasion is necessary to
hold that putting up of a hospital and in particular one for
crippled children is one of the important facets .of the
concept of 'rehabilitation of displaced persons'. Displaced D
- 'f persons are an unenviable section of society.: They bring with
them not only misery and poverty but ailments ·also. Their
children will be afflicted by manifold' ·ailments. To ptovi.de a
hospital for the disabled aod for the crippled children of
9uch displaced persons, in our ·Judgment, ·squarely comes within
tile concept of the idea of 'rehabilitatfon' and · con8equently E
of settlement of the refugees.
The original object of acquisition· proceedings is
generally termed as 'resettlement of refugees' which would
mean their rehabilitation. It would be for the authorities
_.concerned to think of providing various amenities for the F
., displaced persons in the process of rehabilitation. In i:his
case, after the declaration notification, the· authorities
concerned thought of a hospital• They may think· of providing
educational institutions, shopPi.ng ·centres and the like. All
these. amenities cao be conveniently included in the public
purpose generally called 'settlement ·of refugees'. G
,i
The respondent ··s conteriiion can be approached from
another angle also.· It is. a generally accepted principle that
persons interested in lands cannot lightly question thevali-
·~ity of a notification under Section 4 or under Section 6 aod
go behind them. When. an acquisition is proposed for a public H
purpose and the purpose is shown to be a public. purpose,
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A Courts usually frown upon lighthearted attacks on the validity JI
of the notification. In this case we see an unusual method of 4Jlllll
fishing out information by looking into the' files and dis-'-
covering two letters in which mention is made of the starting
of a hospital for crippled children. How can these letters
help the respondents? As we have mentioned earlier, the ori-
ginal notification was on 28.3.1957 and Section 6 notification
B was on 4.1,1962. The two letters on which reliance is placed,
came into being subsequently, This is becaus~ the idea of
providing hospital for crippled children must have occurred to
the officers concerned subsequently. There may arise further ~
correspondence between the department concerned suggesting ·
starting of schools, providing transport facility etc.. It
c would be idle to depend upon such internal communication,
which is normally no1: available to the party wh<ise property is
acquired and to contend that the notification is bad.
Our considered view in this matter is that establishment
of a hospital for crippled children falls within the idea of
D settlement and rehabilitation is displaced persons and the
notification cannot be faulted on the ground that the purpose'f ...
disclosed in the letters is one different from the public
purpose disclosed in. the notification. The Division Bench of
the High Court was in error in quashing the notification.
E In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the
Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore
that of the Single Judge but, in the circumstances of the
case, with no order as to costs.
A.P.J. Appeal allowed.>-- ,
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public purpose"Sign in to search