![PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD. VS. WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. [March 01, 2021]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screenshot-2024-10-12-194153.png)
| CITATION | AIRONLINE 2021 SC 95 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | March 1, 2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court |
| APPELLANT | Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. |
| RESPONDENT | West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. |
| BENCH | B.R. Gavai , R. F. Nariman |
INTRODUCTION
This case deals with a land acquition case governed by West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 & Land Acquisition Act, 1894.It talks about the application and relevance of section 10B of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. In this case a land belonging to Punalur Paper Mills Ltd who is the appellant was requisitioned by WBMDTCL which is a government body of the West Bengal State & the respondent in the current case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case state that the respondent is a government body named West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. which had requisitioned the entire second floor of premises no 13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta measuring approximately 7500 square feet belonging to the appellants named Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. The requisition took place under the 1947 Act in the year 1973. After a series of judgments an amendment was brought in this Act in the year 1987 which inserted section 10B that introduced a new provision according to which the State Government was put under a compulsion to release a property from its requisition on or before the expiry of a period of 25 years from the date of such requisition. As per the mandate of this provision WBMDTCL was supposed to release the requisitioned property in the year 1998 as 25 years span was ending in that year. But instead of releasing the property after the lapse of time they issued a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the said property for the purpose of converting it into permanent office accommodation for WBMDTCL. This notification was challenged by the appellant in the High Court of Calcutta by filing a writ petition asking for possession of the vacant property. The petition was granted and the respondents were ordered to vacate the premises within 3 months. Again a new notification was issued by the respondents invoking the urgency petition under section 17(4) against which the same order was repeated by the single judge bench i.e. to vacate the premises within three months & deliver the possession to the appellant. After that six different appeals were made to the division bench of Calcutta High Court which set aside the notification issued under section 17(4) for the acquisition of the concerned property by citing emergency.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the government body WBMDTCL is eligible to hold the land after the expiry of twenty-five years from the date of requisition?
- Can the acquisition notice issued under section 17(4) be sustained and allowed?
- Whether the appellant is eligible for compensation?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- Learned senior advocate Shri Mukul Rohatgi is representing the appellants.
- He argued against entertaining the state’s appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. He also highlighted the respondent’s irresponsible behavior by emphasizing the illegal occupation of the property by the respondents continuing till date without any compensation.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- Learned advocate Ms Liz Mathew is representing State of West Bengal (WBMDTCL).
- She questioned the order of the division bench of Calcutta High Court stating that the state is allowed by the order of the single judge bench to initiate acquisition process and acquire the property though notification under section 4 read with section 17.
JUDGMENT
After going through the facts of this case, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the division bench of Calcutta High Court. It said that the State of West Bengal had 11.5 years from the year 1987 to 1998 for the proper acquisition of the property. It also asserted that the use of section 17(1) and section 17(4) was an arbitrary action. It criticized the act of WBMDTCL retaining illegal possession of a requisitioned property without paying any compensation even after the period of requisition was over. WBMDTCL is considered as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore its act becomes deplorable. The Supreme Court appointed Shri Soumitra Pal (Retd.Judge, High Court of Calcutta) as an arbitrator for deciding the amount that has to be paid as compensation for illegal occupation of the premises. They were directed to vacate the premises within 4 months from the date of judgment. They were also instructed to submit a written authority for the appointment of an arbitrator in court within a week and were warned that any delay in submitting such authority would make them liable to pay a sum of Rs 100 per square foot, per month for the entire period of illegal occupation of the premises. It was also commanded to pay the entire compensation amount as decided by the arbitrator within the stipulated time.
ANALYSIS
This case depicts the importance of safeguarding property rights of a common entity. Though property rights are no longer a fundamental right, they are still an important requirement of every individual, and hence their compulsory acquisition should be approached carefully & according to law. The authorities should have regard to the fundamental rights given under Article 14 &19 of the Constitution while conducting inquiry under section 5A for acquisition of property as per Section 4. Section 17 should be used only in real emergency cases.
CONCLUSION
This case is a good example of understanding the ideal way of interpreting and applying land requisition and land acquisition laws. Its judgment upholds the right approach and truly imparts justice. It is a relevant precedent for cases related to section 10B of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
REFERENCES
- Indiankanoon
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139406433
- LatestLaws.com
- LexForti
Written by Pushkarni Nandkumar Bhagwat an intern under legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments