MRINALINI ROY RATNA PROVA MONDAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

A         MRINALINI ROY RATNA PROVA MONDAL AND ORS.
                                         v.
                    STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.



B
                              NOVEMBER 21, 1996                                     -
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

         Ss. 3(a), 4(1), 6(3)-l'Land"-Tank fisheries-Acquisition of for
C rehabilitation of difplaced fishemien-Notification u/s. . 4( I), published for
  reclamation of fishe1ies-Held, Tank fishelies are land and acquisition was
  for public purpose-Expression 'land' includes benefits to alise out of the land
  and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached
  to earth-Tank fisheries would be a benefit to arise out of land-Acquisition
  to rehabilitate displaced fishemien to eke out livelihood in reclamation tank
D fishelies is not inconsistent with public purpose which become conclusive u/s.
  6(3).

          State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Suburban Agliculture Dairy & Fisheries
    Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (1993] Supp. 4 SCC 674, held inapplicable.

E         State of West Bengal v. Shebaits of Jswar Shri Saradiya Thakurani &
    Ors., AIR (1971) SC 2097 at 2098 para 3, cited.

          Pasupati Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR (1974) Calcutta 99,
    disapproved.

F         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2486-90
    of 1981.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.75 of the Calcutta High
    Court in 0.0. Nos. 1021-25 of 1973.

G          Dr. Shankar Ghosh aod P.K. Chakraborty for the Appellants.

          Tapas Ray and Rathio Das for the Respondents.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H          These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judg-
                                          70
                  MRINALINIROYRA1NAPROVAMONDALv. STATE                               71

       ment of the Calcutta High Court dated May 27, 1975 in FMA Nos.                      A
       1021-25/73.

....          It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in these cases. Suffice it to
       to state that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
       1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on May 14, 1956 for reclamation
       of the fisheries in the lands comprising cadastral plots enumerated in the          B
       notification, of an extent admeasuring more or less 8760.53 acres. Decla-
       ration under Section 6 was published on January 5, 1971 declaring that the
       land for the reclamation of th.e Southern Salt Lake area was published. We
       are concerned presently to an extent of 1495.93 acres only. It was con-
       tended in the High Court and also repeated by Dr. S. Ghosh, learned
       senior counsel, that the "land", as defined under Section 3(a) does not
                                                                                           c
       include fisheries; that is made explicit by the West Bengal Amendment Act,
       1981 bringing "fishery" within the admit of the word 'land'. It would indicate
       that the authorities have understood that the Act does not apply to acquisi-
        tion of the fisheries rights and, therefore, the acquisition was without
        authority of law. In support thereof, Dr. Ghosh placed reliance on the             D
       judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Pasupati Roy
       v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR (1974) Calcutta 99 and State of West
       Bengal & Ors. v. Suburban Agiicu/ture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,
       (1993] Supp. 4 SCC 674 paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 16 and in State of West
       Bengal v. Shebaits of Iswar Slui Saradiya Ihakurani & Ors., AIR (1971) SC
       2097 at 2098 para 3. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the conten-         E
       tions of the learned counsel. The expression 'land' includes benefits to arise
       out of land and, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to
       anything attached to the earth. Tank fisheries cannot servive independent
       of the tank and there cannot be a tank without the land. Therefore, the
       expression 'land' is required to be understood in that perspective when the         F
       tank fisheries are sought to be acquired. Tank fisheries thereby would be
       a benefit to arise out of the land. Thereby the word 'land' should be
       understood to have been by the elongated definition since it defines with
       inclusiveness that the tank fisheries is a benefit to arise out of land.

             It is then contended that the acquisition is not for a public purpose G
       and, therefore, the Notification is bad in law. We find no force in the
       contention. It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 expressly men-
       tions that the acquisition was for reclamation of the Salt Lake area.
       Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act gives conclusiveness to the public
       purposes.                                                                   H
    72                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A          It is true that a memo was filed on behalf of the Fisheries Depart-       (
    ment and was reiterated in the counter-affidavit ftled in the High Court
    that the land acquired would be used to rehabilitate some of the displaced
    fishermen to eke out the livelihood in reclamation tank fisheries. The above
    statement is not inconsistent with the public purpose which became con-
    clusive under Section 6(3). As seen, while reclaiming the tank fisheries for
B
    the public purpose, some of the displaced fishermen on the other lakes are
    sought to be rehabilitated in the lake in question by enabling them to catch
    the fish to earn livelihood. It would, therefore, be not inconsistent with the
    declaration conclusiveness of which has been attached by operation of
    sub-section (3) of Section 6 which is also consistent with Section 114(h) of
C   the Evidence Act. It is true that prior to the Amendment Act, 1981 tank
    fisheries were not expressly brought within the definition of land. In 1981,
    with a view to avoid any further litigation on the interpretation in that
    behalf, the Legislature expressly brought within the ambit of the land the
    tank fisheries or fisheries. That does not mean that it would not be capable
D   of interpretation to bring within the ambit of benefit to arise out of the
    land. The Division Bench judgments of the Calcutta High Court relied
    upon by Dr. Ghosh have not correctly laid down the law. In Suburban
    Agiiculture Dairy and Saradiya Thakura11i cases (supra), that question did
    not squarely arise. That was a case under the West Bengal Estates Acquisi-
    tion Act. The definition of "land" expressly mentions that the tank fisheries
E   are included within the definition of the "est!lte" but vis-a-vis the rights
    attached therein, option has been given to the intermediary within specified
    time for its retention. Therefore, the intermediary, if he had exercised the
    option after the notification abolishing the concerned estates within the
    specified time, then the tank fisheries stand excluded from vesting. That
    principle has no application to the facts in this case. Accordingly, we hold
F
    that the tank fisheries are the land and the acquisition was for public
    purpose. We do not find any illegality warranting interference with the
    Division Bench judgment.

         The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances,
G   without costs.

    R.P.                                                     Appeals dismissed.