Summary
A 1993 order required the State to acquire long-requisitioned Kolkata premises within six months or release them. Acquisition followed in 1996 without a release order. The Court held that the earlier direction neither quashed requisition nor provided automatic lapse or barred later statutory acquisition, and restored dismissal of the owners’ challenge.
Issues
- Whether expiry of the court-directed period automatically ended requisition and invalidated later acquisition.
- Whether the acquisition was colourable or prohibited by the earlier judgment.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3, 4 and 6, West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948Acquisition under Section 4 requires subsisting requisition; Section 6 prescribes release by order and delivery of possession. Those release steps had not occurred. (¶¶ 10–15, 22–24)
Held
- Requisition cannot continue indefinitely, although its reasonable duration depends on the circumstances. The 1993 order sought acquisition or release but neither quashed the requisition notification nor declared automatic derequisition on expiry of its periods. (¶¶ 6–10, 22)
- The property remained under requisition because no statutory release order or delivery followed. The State could therefore exercise Section 4 acquisition power. The earlier direction did not impose a total embargo or extinguish otherwise available statutory powers; the Court also rejected the suggested contempt consequence for this acquisition. (¶¶ 11–15, 22–24)
- Acquisition for systematic development of Kolkata and transfer to the development authority were not shown to be colourable. The authority clarified that it would not sell the property; the Court distinguished diversion to a private purpose from another public use. Res judicata did not bar the statutory action on this reading of the earlier order. (¶ 25–27)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment quashing acquisition set aside and Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition restored; parties to bear their costs.