http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1971

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR  961            1971 SCR  (3) 791  1971 SCC  (1) 688  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC1461  (1041)

ACT: Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954-Chandernagore (Assimilation of  Laws)  Act,  1955-Extension  of  West    Bengal  Laws  to Chandernagore  territory-West Bengal Land  (Requisition  and Acquisition)  Act, 1948 whether applicable to  Chandernagore by virtue of Merger and Assimilation Acts aforesaid-Power of Collector  to requisition land whether confined to  area  of Hooghly District before merger of Chandernagore.

HEADNOTE: The  French  settlement of Chandernagore was merged  in  the State  of  West Bengal with effect from October 2,  1954  by virtue of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954.  It was made part  of  Hoogly District.  By s. 17 of the Merger  Act  the laws relating to Lists I and III-of the Seventh Schedule  to the  Constitution, in force in West Bengal ’generally’  were extended   to   the  merged  territory.   By   s.   18   the corresponding  laws of French Chandernagore  were  repealed. The  Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955 by s.  3 thereof extended the laws relating to List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in force in West Bengal to  the merged  territory.  By S. 4 the corresponding laws in  force before  merger  were repealed.  The Collector of  Hoogly  in exercise  of Powers conferred on him by  notification  dated May  11,  1948  made  two  orders  under  s.  3(1)  of   the Acquisition  Act.   The  appellants  challenged  them  in  a petition  under Art. 226 of the Constitution.  The  petition being  dismissed  appeal was filed in this  Court.   It  was contended : (i) that the orders of requisitions were illegal as the Acquisition Act under which they were issued did  not apply   to   the  territory  previously  known   as   French Chandemagore; (ii) that under the notification dated May 11, 1948 the Collector could exercise the powers of  requisition only  in  respect of lands within the local  limits  of  the territories the forming part of the Hooghly District. HELD : (i) The first contention had no force.  Section 3  of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 made Chandernagore part

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

of  the  State  of  West  Bengal  and  s.  17  extended  the Acquisition Act to it.  The Acquisition Act was a law within the   meaning  of  ’law’  contained  in  s.  2(c)   of   the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act because it  related to a matter enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the   Constitution   which   refers   to   acquisition   and requisitioning  of property.  In so far as  the  Acquisition Act related to entry 42 of List III which deals with compen- sation,  it  was  applied  by  s.  3  of  the  Chandernagore (Assimilation  of  Laws)  Act,  1955,  and  s.  17  of   the Chandernagore  (Merger) Act, 1954, read with the  definition of the word ’laws, in s. 2(d) of the latter- Act. [799  F800 A] The  argument that the Acquisition Act was not in  force  in West  Bengal  generally’ because it was extended  for  short periods  from time to time could not be accepted.  The  word ’generally’  refers to the territory of West Bengal and  not to the duration of time during which it had to operate. [800 B-C] The  contention that because there was no corresponding  law within  the meaning of s. 17 of the Merger Act and s.  4  of the  Assimilation Act, s. 3 Of the latter Act did  not  have the effect of extending the’ Acquisition Act to Chandemagore must also be rejected.  Section 4 has a limited effect 796 and  that is that if there as a corresponding law then  that law   shall,   as  from  that  date,   stand   repealed   in Chandernagore.   If there is no corresponding law then s.  4 does not operate and it has no effect on the scope of s.  3. [800 D] The fact that there was no law of requisitioning of property in French territory could not mean that the citizen  enjoyed the privilege of immunity ’from such a law.  If by virtue of s.  3  of  the  Assimilation of  Laws  Act  an  Act  becomes applicable to Chandernagore all privileges and immunities in conflict with the Act would cease to exist. [800 E-F] (ii)The High Court was right in holding that the  Collector of Hoogly had the authority to issue the orders in question. If  the  order  of requisition is by a  Collector  then  the notification  of  1948 applies and the Collector  of  Hoogly would  be  authorised to issue  orders  requisitioning  land existing  in  Chandernagore because Chandernagore  had  come within  the  limits of his jurisdiction.   The  notification must be construed to refer to the limits of the District  as it  exists  on  the  date of  the  exercise  of  the  powers conferred by the notification.  If the orders of requisition were  issued by the Additional District Magistrate, then  he had authority by virtue of notification dated September  15, 1959, by which he was empowered to perform the functions  of a  Collector.  The said notification amounted  to  ’special’ appointment  of the said officer within the meaning  of  the definition of ’Collector’ in the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1059.  "[800 G-801 B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 500 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1965 of the  Calcutta, High Court in Appeal from original order  No. 104 of 1963. Arun K. Dutt, D. N. Mukherjee and S. Dey, for the appellant. Niren  De, Attorney-General and P. K. Chakravarti,  for  the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Sikri,  C.J.  In our order dated March 10, 1970,  we  stated that we will give our reasons later for rejecting the points raised before us. We now proceed to give those reasons. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court  of Calcutta  (Bose, C.J., and Mitra, J.) dismissing the  appeal of  Sachindra Mohan Nandy and ja Janandra Mohan  Nandy,  now appellants before us, against the judgment of Mukharji,  J., discharging  the rule obtained by the appellants under  Art. 286  of  tile  Constitution; In  Order  to  appreciate,  the points,  raised  before  us it is  necessary  to  state  the relevant facts. On  October 9, 1960 and October 10, 1960, the Collector-  of Hoogly made two orders under S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-hereinafter referred to 7 97 as  the  Acquisition  Act.   The  Collector’  purported   to requisition  land  belonging to the appellants  for  certain public  purposes.  He had issued the orders in  exercise  of the powers which had been conferred upon him by notification No. 3775-L.A. dated May 11, 1948, published in the  Calcutta Gazette.,  Part 1, on May 27, 1948.  ’This notification  had authorised  the  Collector to exercise the powers  under  s. 3(1)  of  the Acquisition Act.  When this  notification  was passed  Chandernagore,  where  the  requisitioned  land   is situate, was not part of West Bengal and it is on this  fact that one argument, shortly to be mentioned, rests. According  to the appellants the Acquisition Act  has  never been  extended  and made applicable to  Chandernagore.   For appreciating this particular point it is necessary to  state the history of Chandernagore.  It is well-known that it  was a French settlement in India, and it was only on October  2, 195,4, that it was merged in the, State of Bengal.,  Section 3  of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 (XXXVI  of  1954) provided that Chandernagore shall form part of the State  of West  Bengal, District of Hoogly, and the  State  Government shall  provide  for the administration of  Chandernagore  by constituting  it into a new sub-division of the District  of Hoogly.    Section   17  provided  that  "all   laws   which immediately  before the appointed day extend to, or  are  in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as  from that  day,  extend to, or, as the case may be,  come  in  to force  in,  Chandernagore."  Section   1  8  has  not   much relevance  but the learned counsel relied on it.  Section  1 8(1) reads thus               "18(1)   Repeal  of  Corresponding  laws   and               savings               Any law in force in Chandernagore  immediately               before  the appointed day (hereafter  in  this               Act  referred to as the " corresponding  law")               which  corresponds to any law referred to,  in               section 17, whether such corresponding law  is               in  force  in Chandernagore by virtue  of  the               Chandernagore  (Application  of  Laws)  Order,               1950, or by virtue of any notification  issued               under   the   Chandemagore    (Administration)               Regulation,   1952  (Reg.   1  of   1952)   or               otherwise,  shall,  as from that  duty,  stand               repealed in Chandernagore.               The   word   "law"   was   defined   in    the               Chalidernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, as  follows               : (S. 2(d)               " "law" means so much of any enactment, Ordin-               ance,   Regulation,   order,   rule,   scheme,               notification,  bylaw or any  other  instrument

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             having the force of law as relates to  matters               enumerated  in  List  I and List  III  in  the               Seventh Schedule to the Constitution." 798 After this the Legislature of West Bengal enacted the  Chan- dernagore  (Assimilation-,of Laws) Act, 1955.  Section  2(c) of  this  Act defined "law" to mean "so much,  of  any  Act, Ordinance,  Regulation, order, rule,  scheme,  notification, bye-law  or any other instrument having the force of law  as relates  to  matters enumerated in List III in  the  Seventh Schedule  to the Constitution of India." Section 3  provides that  "all laws which immediately before the  appointed  day extend  to,  or are in force in, the State  of  West  Bengal generally  shall,  as from that day, extend to, or,  as  the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore." Section 4(1) provided for repeal of corresponding laws and reads,               "4(1)  Any law in force in Chandemagore  imme-               diately before the appointed day  (hereinafter               in  this  Act referred  to  as  "corresponding               law") which corresponds to any law referred to               in  section 3, whether such corresponding  law               is in force in Chandernagore by virtue of  the               Chandemagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950               or by virtue of any notification issued  under               the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation,               1952,  or  otherwise, shall as  from  the  day               stand repealed in Chandernagore." Section  8,  which  was inserted in  1959,  removed  certain doubts   regarding   the  extension  of  certain   acts   to Chandernagore, in the following terms:               "8. Notwithstanding anything to the  contrary,               in  any  judgment or decision  of  any  court,               tribunal  or  authority, the  following  Acts,               that   is   to  say  The  West   Bengal   Land               Development  and Planning Act, 1948, The  West               Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 and               The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act,  1953               shall  extend to and be deemed always to  have               extended to Chandemagore with effect from  the               appointed day." We may here set out the notifications empowering Sri.  B. K. Chatterjee, I.A.S. to perform the functions of the Collector in  the District of Hooghly under the Acquisition  Act.   By the  first  notification  dated  September  15,  1959,   the Governor  was  pleased  "to  specially  appoint  Sri  B.  K. Chatterjee, I.A.S., Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly, to  perform the functions of a Collector under the said  Act in the District of Hooghly." Another notification issued  on the same day had authorised Sri B. K.  Chatterjee,   I.A.S., Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly, to  requisition  by order in writing any land within the local limits of   the District of Hooghly.  The two requisition orders purport  to have been signed by the Collector of Hooghly. 799 The notification dated May 11, 1948, to which reference  has been made above read’s as follows:               "No. 3775 L.A. (P.W.) 11th May, 1948.  In  ex-               ercise of the powers conferred by  Sub-section               (1)  of  Section  3 of the  West  Bengal  Land               (Requisition  and Acquisition) Act 1948  (West               Bengal  Act  11  of  1948),  the  Governor  is               pleased  hereby  to  authorise  each  of   the               Collector   and   the   Deputy   Commissioners                             mentioned in the Schedule below to req uisition,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             by  order  in  writing, in  pursuance  of  the               provisions of the said Sub-section (1) of  the               said  Section 3, (torn) land within the  local               limits of his jurisdiction and (torn) to  make               such  further  orders as appear to him  to  be               necessary or expedient in connection with  the               requisitioning               Schedule.               Collector of Hooghly District The  learned counsel has raised the following points  before us (1)    that the orders of requisition were illegal as the Acquisition Act     under  which they were issued,  did  not apply   to   the  territory  previously  known   as   French Chandernagore; and (2) that under the notification dated-May 11,  1948,  the  Collector  could  exercise  the  powers  of requisition only in respect of lands within the local limits of  the  territories  then  forming  part  of  the   Hooghly District. Regarding  the first point, it seems to us that there is  no force  in the contentions.  Section 3 of  the  Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, made Chandernagore part of the State  of west  Bengal, and s. 17 extended the Acquisition Act to  it. The  Acquisition Act was a law within the meaning  of  "law" contained  in s. 2(c) of the Chandernagore (Assimilation  of Laws) Act because it related to a matter enumerated in  List 11 in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.  List 11, as it then existed, contained the following entries               "   36.   Acquisition  or  requisitioning   of               property,  except  for  the  purposes  of  the               Union,  subject to the provisions of entry  42               of List Ill." Entry 42 of List III was to the following effect               "Principles on which compensation for property               acquired or requisitioned for the purposes  of               the  Union  or  of a State or  for  any  other               public  purpose is to be determined,  and  the               form and the manner in which such compensation               is to be given." 7---L1100 Sup.CI/71 800 Insofar as the Acquisition Act related to entry 42 of,  List III it was applied by S. 3 of the Chandernagore Assimilation of  Laws) Act 1955, and s. 17 of the Chandernagore  (Merger) Act, 1954, read with the definition of the word "law" in  s. 2(d) of the latter Act. The  learned counsel further urged before us that  this  law was  not  in force in the State of West  Bengal  "generally" because  it  provided that it shall remain in force  upto  a certain  date  and this date had been changed from  time  to time.  In 1954 it was provided that it shall remain in force upto  Match 31, 1957.  We are unable to appreciate  how  the word  "generally" has any reference to the duration  of  the time during which an act has to operate.  We, agree with the High Court that the word generally" refers to the  territory of West Bengal. Another  argument that was urged before us was that  because there  was no corresponding law within the meaning of s.  17 of  the  Chandernagore (Merger) Ac, 1954, and s.  4  of  the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955, s. 3 of  the latter  Act  did  not  have  the  effect  of  extending  the Acquisition   Act  to  Chandernagore.   We  are  unable   to appreciate  this reasoning.  Section 4 has a limited  effect and  that is that if there is a corresponding law then  that law  shall,  as  from that.date,  stand  repealed  in  Chan- dernagore.   If.  there is no. corresponding law then  s.  4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

does not operate and it has no effect on the scope of s. 3. It was finally urged in this connection that as there was no law  on the subject of requisitioning of property in  French territory,  the citizens enjoyed the privilege  of  immunity and  any  order to deprive the citizens  of  that  immunity, should have been much more specific.  We agree with the High Court  that  there is no, force in this contention.   If  by virtue  of  S.  3 of the Assimilation of  Laws  Act  an  Act becomes applicable to Chandernagore all privileges and immu- nities in conflict with that Act would cease to exist. Coming  to  the second point, we agree with the  High  Court that the Collector of Hooghly had the authority to issue the orders  of  requisition  in  question.   If  the  order   of requisition is by a collector then the notification of  1948 applies and the Collector of Hooghly would be authorised  to issue  orders requisitioning land existing in  Chandernagore because  Chandemagore  had  come within the  limits  of  his jurisdiction.   The notification must be construed to  refer to  the limits of the District as it exists on the  date  of the  exercise of the powers conferred by  the  notification. If  the  orders  of requisition were issued by  Shri  B.  K. Chatterjee, I.A.S., Additional District Magistrate, then  he had authority by virtue of the notification dated  September 15, 1959, mentioned above. The learned counsel, referring to the Acquisition Act, as it stood  in  1959,  and the definition  of  "collector"  ("the Collector of             801 a  district  and  includes a Deputy  Commissioner-  and  any officer  specially  appointed by the  State  ’Government  to perform  the functions of a Collector under this Act)  urged that  the Additional District Magistrate was not  "specially appointed."   There  is  no  force  in  this   point.    The notification  of  September  15, 1959,  amounts  to  special appointment within the definition of "Collector." We referred the following question to the Constitution Bench which has answered it in the negative :-               "Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and               Acquisition)  Act  1948  is  ultra  vires  the               Constitution  under  Art. 19(1)(f)  read  with               Art. 19(5) ?" In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. 80 2