http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 21  

PETITIONER: WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BRIJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T D. P. Wadhwa, J.      Special leave granted.      These appeals  are directed  against the judgment dated 27th 29  March, 1996  of the  Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court  setting aside  the  requisition  and  subsequent acquisition  of   the  certain   piece  of  land  under  the provisions  of   the  West   Bengal  Land  (Requisition  and Acquisition) Act,  1948 (PDS   short  ‘the Act’)  as amended from time  to time.  The impugned  judgment proceeded on the basis (1)  that there  was no  proper service  of notice  as required under  Section 3  of the Act and that (2) there was no public purpose in requisitioning the land.      Subject matter  of the  land comprise in plot Nos. 444, 445 and 446 under Khatian Nos. 343, 256 and 135 respectively in all measuring 1.82 acres in Mouza Mandalganthi within the limits of  Rajarhat Police Station, Rajarhat Municipality in the district  of 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal. This land belonged to  one  Chandra  Kala  Parasrampuria  and  Ranjana Kaushal and  was recorded  in their  names  in  the  revenue Record of  Rights. Respondents  1 and 6 to 18 (for short the writ petitioners’)  purchased this land in the year 1988 and on or  about February  15, 1990 they applied for mutation of the land  in their  names. Even  after purchase  of the land they had  paid rent  of the land in the name of Chandra Kala Parasrampuria and  others,  the  original  owners  and  were granted receipts  in the names of the original owners. It is stated that  it was  on September 7, 1995 that a certificate of mutation  had been  issued by  the  prescribed  authority under Section  50 of  the West  Bengal Land  Reforms Act  in favour of the writ petitioners. Their names also appeared in the revised settlement record where after they paid rent. We are mentioning  this fact  as  it  was  contended  that  the application  of   the  writ  petitioners  for  mutation  was ultimately allowed.  The writ  petition in  the  High  Court itself came to be filed on March 27, 1995.      Before we  examine as  to  how  the  land  came  to  be requisitioned and then acquired under provisions of the Act, we may  set out  the relevant  provisions of law. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act read as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 21  

    "Power to requisition :- (1) If the      State Government  is of the opinion      that it  is necessary  so to do for      maintaining supplies  and  services      essential  to   the  life   of  the      community   (or    for   increasing      employment  opportunities  for  the      people by  establishing  commercial      estates and  industrial estates  in      different areas)  or for  providing      proper  facilities  for  transport,      communication,    irrigation     or      drainage, or  for the  creation  of      better living  conditions in  rural      or  urban   areas,  not   being  an      industrial or  other areas excluded      by  the   State  Government   by  a      notification in this behalf, by the      construction or  reconstruction  of      dwelling places  in such  areas (or      for purposes connected therewith or      incidental  thereto),   the   State      Government   may,   by   order   in      writing, requisition  any land  and      may make  such  further  orders  as      appears to  it to  be necessary  or      expedient in  connection  with  the      requisitioning:      Provided  that  no  land  used  for      purpose  of  religious  worship  or      used   by    an   educational    or      charitable  institution   shall  be      requisitioned under this section,      (1A) A Collector of a district, (an      Additional District  Magistrate  or      the    First    Land    Acquisition      Collector,      Calcutta)      when      authorised by  the State Government      in     this  behalf,  may  exercise      within his  jurisdiction the powers      conferred by sub-section (1).      (2) An  order under sub-section (1)      shall be  served in  the prescribed      manner on the owner of the land and      where the  order relates to land in      occupation  (of  an  occupier,  not      being the  owner of  the land, also      on such occupied),      (3) If  any person  fails to comply      with  an   order  made  under  sub-      section (1)  the Collector  or  any      person authorised by him in writing      in this  behalf shall  execute  the      order  in   such   manner   as   he      considers expedient and may, -      (a) if  he is a Magistrate, enforce      the delivery  of possession  of the      land in  respect of which the order      has been made to himself, or      (b) if  he  is  not  a  Magistrate,      apply  to   a  Magistrate   or,  in      Calcutta as  defined in clause (11)      of  Section   5  of   the  Calcutta      Municipal   Act,   1951,   to   the      Commissioner of  Police,  and  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 21  

    Magistrate or  Commissioner, as the      case   may be,  shall  enforce  the      delivery of possession of such land      to him."      "4. Acquisition of land - (1) Where      any  land  has  been  requisitioned      under   Section    3,   the   State      Government may  use  or  deal  with      such land  for any  of the  purpose      referred to  in sub-section  (1) of      Section 3 as may appear to it to be      expedient.      (1a)  The   State  Government   may      acquire  any   land   requisitioned      under Section  3  by  publishing  a      notice in the Official Gazette that      such land  is required for a public      purpose referred  to in sub-section      (1) of Section 3.      (2) Where  a notice as aforesaid is      published in  the Official Gazette,      the requisitioned  land  shall,  on      and from  the beginning  of the day      on   which   the   notice   is   so      published, vest  absolutely in  the      (State  Government  free  from  all      incumbrances  and   the  period  of      requisition  of   such  land  shall      end."      Rule  3   of  the   West  Bengal  Land  (Requisition  & Acquisition Rules,  1948 deals  with manner  of  service  of orders and is an under:      "3. Manner  of Service  of Orders -      An order  under sub-section  (1) or      section 3  shall be  served on  the      owner of  the land  and  where  the      order relates to land in occupation      of an  occupier not being the owner      of the land, also on such occupier.      (a) by  delivering or  tendering  a      copy thereof,  endorsed  either  by      the person authorised by the Act to      make the order or by the Collector,      to the  person on whom the order is      to be served or his agent, or      (b) by fixing a copy thereof on the      outer door of some conclusions part      of the house in which the person on      whom the  order  is  to  be  served      ordinarily resides  or carriers  on      business or  personally  works  for      gain, or      (c) by  sending  the  same  to  the      person on  whom the  order is to be      served  by   registered  post  with      acknowledgement due, or      (d) by  fixing a  copy  thereof  in      some conscious  part of the land to      which the order relates and also in      some  conspicuous   place  of   the      office of the Collector."      When the  writ petitioner  was filed  a learned  single Judge of  the High Court directed maintenance of status quo. By subsequent order it appears the interim order in terms of prayer (d)  of the  writ petition  was passed. An appeal was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 21  

filed against  that order  before the  Division Bench  which directed that  "construction in question need not be stopped and may  be proceeded  with subject  to the decision of this application without  prejudice to the rights and contentions of the  parties in  this application". When again matter was placed before  the Division  Bench, counsel  for the parties agreed that  keeping in  view the  urgency of the matter the entire writ  applications be  heard. As  noted above,  these writ petitions  were allowed  by the  Division Bench  by the judgment  dated   27/29th  March,   1996.  Impugned   notice requisitioning the land was quashed and direction was issued to the  State authorities  to hand over vacant possession of the land to the writ petitioners. West Bengal Housing Board, State of  West Bengal and others and Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company  Ltd. have filed separate appeals before this Court.      Admittedly names  of  the  writ  petitioners  were  not recorded in the Record of Rights by the prescribed authority under Section  50 of  the WB  Land Reforms  Act  though  the purchase of  the land  was made  by the petitioners in 1988. They had  applied for mutation of the land in their names on February 15, 1990 and certificate of mutation was granted by the prescribed  authority on  September 7,  1995 much  after when the  land had been acquired under Section 4 of the Act. However, the  Division Bench  in the  impugned judgment held that even  though the  names of the writ petitioners had not been  recorded   in  the   Record  of   Rights,  they   were nevertheless entitled  to notice  under Section  3(2) of the Act, as  by virtue  of their  purchasing the  land from  the original owners  they were  owners  of  the  land  and  thus entitled to  notice. It  was observed  that  the  expression "owner" occurring  in the  said section  must be  given  the meaning in  which it  is understood  in common  parlance and that there  was no  warrant for  importing the provisions of the WB  Land Reforms  Act in construing the said expression. The Division  Bench also observed that it was incumbent upon the authorities  to make inquiries in order to ascertain who were the  owners and  that the authorities must be deemed to have constructive  notice of  the ownership  of land  by the writ  petitioners   by  reason   of  registration  of  their respective sale  deeds. It was thus held that non-service of such notice  on the  writ  petitioners  rendered  the  whole requisition order  bad in  law. The  Division Bench  further held that  the purpose  for which  the requisition  had been made, was not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act and that  the circumstances  of the case did not justify the invocation of  the provisions  of the Act which was intended for a special purpose and the exercise by the authorities of the powers  under the  Act was in fact a colourable exercise or power.  The Bench  further held that the Act did not even provide for  the application  of the  principles of  natural justice and  its provisions being of drastic measure, had to be strictly complied which the authorities failed to do so.      The principal question that arises for consideration is if it  were the writ petitioners who were entitled to notice under Section  3(2) of  the Act or that this provision stood complied by serving notice on the recorded owners of land in the Record  of Rights  maintained under Section 50 of the WB Land Reforms  Act. We are of the view that the provisions of service of notice stood complied when notices were served on the persons  recorded as  owners in  the  Record  of  Rights maintained under  Section 50  of the WB Land Reforms Act. We are of  the view  that the  provisions of  service of notice stood complied  when notices  were  served  on  the  persons recorded as owners in the Record of Rights. Record of Rights

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 21  

is  a   statutory  document  maintained  by  the  prescribed authority under  Section 50 of the Act and it is a notice to the public  at large as to who are the owners of the land in the records  of the authorities. That would be the reason as to why  writ petitioners  themselves applied for mutation of the lands  in their names in the year 1990 when in fact they had purchased  the same in 1988. Under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land  Reforms Act, 1955, the Act overrides other laws if there is anything inconsistent with what is stated in the Act. Section  50 of  the Act provides for maintenance of the record-of-rights   by    the   prescribed    authority    by incorporating therein  the changes on account of mutation of names as  a result  of transfer or inheritance or partition, exchange etc.  Under sub-section  (9) of  Section 51A  every entry in  the  record-of-rights  shall  be  presumed  to  be correct, until it is proved that the entry in the record-of- right is incorrect, proceedings for that, however, will have to be  initiated under  the Act  itself, Otherwise  there  s every presumption  about the  correctness of  the record-of- rights. As  noted above  mutation was  effected in September 1995. The  Division Bench  has observed  that the  Collector would have been aware of the pendency of the applications of the writ  petitioners for  mutation of  lands in their names when the  same were  pending in  his office.  The  Bench  in effect observed  that it was a case where the right hand did not know  what the  left hand  was doing.  This  observation sounds goods,  but knowing  the working  of  the  Government offices  it  appears  to  have  no  place.  Of  course,  the Collector could  have asked for a report from the prescribed authority concerned  if any  application for mutation of the land was  pending with  him. But that would be expecting too much from  the Collector.  It is  no part of the duty of the Collector to  make a  roving inquiry  into ownership  of the persons. We  are of  the opinion the requirements of the law were met  when notices  were served upon the recorded owners as per  Record of  Rights. Again  we do  not think in a case like the  present one,  it is  for  the  Collector  to  make enquiries from  registration office  to find out if the land had since  been  sold  by  the  recorded  owners.  In  Winky Dilawari (Smt.)  and another vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar (1996  11 SCC 644) (infra) this Court observed that the public  authorities were  not expected  to go  on making enquiries in  the Sub-Registrar’s  office as to who would be the owner of the property. The Collector in the present case was thus  justified in relying  on the official record being the Record  of Rights  as to  who were  owners of  the  land sought to  be requisitioned and prudence did not require any further enquiry  to be  made. We  are therefore  of the view that notices  were properly served under Section 3(2) of the Act on the owners of the land.      Before we further examine the rival contentions, we may have a look as to how the land was requisitioned on April 2, 1992, acquired  on July 22, 1994, transferred to the Housing Board on December 8, 1994 and finally placed at the disposal of the  Bengal Peerless Development Company Ltd. If we refer to the object of the Act, it will be see that it was enacted to provide  for the  requisition and  speedy acquisition  of land for certain purposes. It says:      "Whereas it is expedient to provide      for  the   requisition  and  speedy      acquisition of land for purposes of      maintaining supplies  and  services      essential  to   the  life   of  the      community,  increasing   employment      opportunities  for  the  people  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 21  

    establishing commercial estates and      industrial  estates   in  different      areas, providing  proper facilities      for    transport,    communication,      irrigation or drainage and creating      better living  condition sin  urban      or rural  areas by the construction      or   reconstruction   of   dwelling      places  in   such  areas   or   for      purposes  connected  therewith  and      incidental thereto:"      With reference  to the  object with  which the  Act was enacted we  may now refer to the order under Section 3(1) of the Act  requisition the  land. This  can be  extracted from that order and it is as under:      "Whereas  in   my  opinion   it  is      necessary  for   the   purpose   of      construction of  Housing Complex by      Housing  Development  Govt.  of  WB      (Reg. Branch)  maintaining supplies      and services  essential to the life      of the  community providing  proper      facilities                      for      transport/communication/irrigation/      drainage, viz.  for the  purpose of      better living condition in rural or      urban  areas   by  construction  or      reconstruction of  dwelling  places      to    requisition    the    land(s)      described    in     the    schedule      below/overleaf."      We may  also note  that the Act was a temporary measure and its  validity had  been extended  from time to time. The Amending Act,  1994 came  into force  on March  31, 1994, by which the  validity of  the Act  was extended till March 31, 1997 but the power of requisition of land under Section 3 of the Act  had been omitted with effect from April 1, 1994. It was however provided that such omission would not affect the previous operation of the said section or anything duly done thereunder and  any reference  to the  said section  in  any other provisions of the principal Act should be construed as if the  said section  had not  been  omitted.  The  Act  was further amended  on October  8, 1996  by  providing  certain procedure for  warding compensation  etc. In any event these two amendments would have no application in the present case inasmuch as  the notice of requisition under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued on April 2, 1992 and gazette notification for requisition of the land was published on July 22, 1994.      It is  submitted that the West Bengal Housing Board Act (for short  ‘the Housing  Board Act’) was enacted on October 13, 1972  with a view to solve the acute problem of shortage of housing,  which called for greater and quicker attention, Mr. Gupta,  learned senior counsel appearing for the Housing Board submitted  that it had not been possible for the State to make  the desired  expeditious progress  in regard to the construction of  houses because  of inadequate resources and also because  of the  prevailing rules  and procedures which was a  time consuming process. He said the Housing Board was in  a  better  position  to  undertake  housing  and  allied projects on  a much larger scale and would be able to secure adequate funds  by raising  market  loans  or  by  obtaining institutional finance,  which a  Government Department could not do.      Again it would appear the Housing Board was also unable to  meet  the  challenge  of  constructing  more  houses  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 21  

alleviate the  sufferings of  the people  both in  urban and rural areas.  In 1993  the West Bengal Housing Board Act was amended and the concept of joint venture with private sector was brought  in. It  will be  instructive to  refer  to  the Statement of  Objects and  Reasons which led to introduction of the  West Bengal Housing Board (Amendment) Bill, 1993. It is as under:      "1.   It   has   been   under   the      consideration    of    the    State      Government for  some time  past  to      embark on  joint venture to promote      housing activities on a large scale      for different  categories of people      having different quantums of income      and  particularly  for  Low  Income      Group  and   Middle  Income   Group      people and  to  develop  lands  for      distribution to  the general public      for   the   purpose   of   building      dwelling houses  thereon. To tackle      the problem of hopelessness even in      a  modest   way,  it  is,  however,      necessary to  build at least 50,000      dwelling  units   in  urban   areas      during the  next  five  years.  The      Housing  Department  and  the  West      Bengal  Housing   Board   are,   of      course, doing their best within the      existing  framework   to  make  the      optimum   utilisation    of   their      organisational  capacity  to  build      the dwelling  units  as  aforesaid.      But the dimension of the problem is      so large  that it  is not  possible      for the  Housing Department and the      West  Bengal   Housing   Board   to      achieve the target on their own.      2. In  the circumstances  as stated      above   and    after   a    careful      considering of  the matter,  it has      ben decided  to constitute,  in the      public   interest,   joint   sector      company  or   companies  for  being      entrusted with  housing schemes for      expeditious execution.      3. It  has also  been decided  that      the dues of the West Bengal Housing      Board from  any  individual,  firm,      company or  association or  body of      individuals,  whether  incorporated      or not,  should be  recovered as an      appears  of  land  revenue  in  the      manner  provided   in  the   Bengal      Public Demands  Recovery Act,  1913      (Ben. Act III of 1913).      4. The  Bill has  been framed  with      the above objects in view."      Under sub-section  (12A) of  Section 2  of the Amending Act "new  joint sector company" means a joint sector company formed and  registered on  or after  the date of coming into force of the Amending Act, 1993. Under Section 27A power has been conferred  on the  Housing Board  constituted under the Act to  entrust existing  of new  joint sector  company with housing schemes. This section 27A is as under:      "27A. Power to entrust existing, of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21  

    new,  joint   sector  company  with      housing scheme.  -- Notwithstanding      anything contained in this Act, the      Board  may,  if  it  considers  PDS      necessary so  to do  in the  public      interest and is s satisfied that an      existing,  or   new,  joint  sector      company is  willing to  comply,  or      has complied.  with such  terms and      conditions as  the State Government      may think  fit to  impose, entrust,      with the  previous approval  of the      State Government,  any existing, or      new, joint  sector company with any      housing scheme  for execution,  and      different existing,  or new,  joint      sector   companies    may   be   so      entrusted  with  different  housing      scheme for execution."      It may  be noted  that under  the  Housing  Board  Act, Housing Board  (or Board)  has been  constituted which  is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may  sue and  be used in the corporate name and shall be competent to  acquire and  hold property  both  movable  and immovable, enter  into contract  and do  all thing necessary for the  purposes of  this Act.  Under  Section  17  of  the Housing Board  Act powers  and duties  of Board to undertake housing scheme  have been  prescribed. Section 17, in so far as it is relevant, is as under:      "27A. Power  to entrust existing or      new,  joint   sector  company  with      housing  scheme."   Notwithstanding      anything contained in this Act, the      Board  may,   if  it  considers  at      necessary so  to do  in the  public      interest and  is satisfied  that an      existing,  or   new,  joint  sector      company is  willing to  comply,  or      has compiled,  with such  terms and      conditions as  the State Government      may think  fit to  impose, entrust,      with the  previous approval  of the      State   Government,   any   housing      scheme for execution, and different      existing,  or   new,  joint  sector      companies may  be so entrusted with      different   housing   schemes   for      execution."      It may  be noted  that under  the  Housing  Board  Act, Housing Board  (or Board)  has been  constituted which  is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may  sue and  be sued in the corporate name and shall be competent to  acquire and  hold property  both  movable  and immovable, enter  into contract  and do all things necessary for the  purposes of  this Act.  Under  Section  17  of  the Housing Board  Act powers  and duties  of Board to undertake housing schemes  have been prescribed. Section 17. in so far as it is relevant, is as under ;      "17. Powers  and duties of Board to      undertake  housing   schemes,   (1)      Subject to  the provisions  of this      Act. the  Board may,  from time  to      time. incur expending and undertake      works for the framing and execution      of such  housing schemes  as it may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 21  

    consider necessary and such housing      schemes may include housing schemes      in relation  to lands  and building      vested in  or in  the possession of      the State Government.      (2) The  State Government  may,  on      such terms and conditions as it may      think fit  to impose entrust to the      Board the  framing and execution of      whether provided for by this Act or      not and  the Board  shall thereupon      undertake the framing and execution      of such scheme."      Section 18 specifies the matters which a housing scheme may provide.      On September 13. 1993 a Memorandum of Understanding was drawn up  between the Housing Board and the Peerless General Finance &  Investment Co.  Ltd., a  public  limited  company under the  Companies Act,  1956 to  promote a  joint  sector company  and  in  accordance  thereto  the  Bengal  Peerless Housing Development  Company Limited was incorporated as the existing joint  sector company  with 49.5%  share-holding by each of the Housing Board and the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.  Ltd. and  one per  cent by he State of West- Bengal.      By the  order and notification dated July 22, 1994 made under Section  4 of  the Act,  the State Government acquired the aforesaid 1.82 acres of land for construction of housing complex. The notification was duly published in the official gazette and  on and  from the  said date  the  lands  vested absolutely in  the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 4  of the  Act. By  a subsequent  notification dated December 9,  1994 made  under Section  29 (1) of the Housing Board Act  the State Government transferred 11 acres of land which included  land measuring 1.82 acres, subject matter of the present proceedings, to the Housing Board. Under Section 29(1) of  the Housing  Board Act,  the State  Government  is empowered to  transfer to  the Housing Board all such assets and liabilities  of the State Government as if may decide so to do  which stand  vested and  transferred to  the  Housing Board. On  March 29, 1995 formal permissive possession of 11 acres of  land which  had now  included 1.82  acres of  land which had  now included  1.82 acres  of the land in question was handed  over to  the new joint sector company, i.e., the Bengal Peerless  Housing Development  Company Limited by the Housing Board  to  undertake  construction  of  the  housing project with  effect from April 3. 1995. As a matter of fact the foundation  stone for  this housing  project  which  was named as  "Anupama" was  laid by  the Chief  Minister of the Government of  West Bengal  on January  1, 1995. The housing project was  to be  executed  on  17  acres  of  land  which included 11  acres of land aforementioned. It is stated that necessary work  for the  purpose of  housing project in fact started  on   the  land   by  the  Bengal  Peerless  Housing Development Company Ltd. on January 10, 1995.      Mr. V.R. Reddy the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared  for he State of West Bengal submitted that the State Government  acquired a  total area  of 29.23  acres of land for the purpose of creating better living conditions in rural and  urban areas  by construction or reconstruction of dwelling units  for the  community. The  land vested  in the State Government  under Section  4 of the Act. He said 10.35 acres of  land out  of the land so acquired  was released at the request of the Ministry of Urban Development. Government of India for the purpose of constructing Housing Project for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 21  

Central Government  Employees Welfare  Organisation. Out  of remaining 18.99  acres  of  land  subject  matter  of  these proceedings, were  handed  over  to  the  Housing  Board  by different notifications  under Section  29  of  the  Housing Board Act  on certain terms and conditions relevant of which would be : (1) the land hereby transferred shall be utilised by the  Housing Board  solely for  the purpose of houses and (2) the Housing Board shall take all steps expeditiously for sale of  all houses/flats proposed to be built together with the common  areas and  facilities comprised  on the  area of land so  transferred to  eligible persons either by outright sale or  on hire-ourchase basis at a price considered by the Housing Board as fair and reasonable.      In  supplementary   affidavit  filed   by   the   Joint Secretary, Housing  Board, Government of West Bengal, it has been stated as under :      "I.  The State Government duly held      negotiations and  discussions  with      different private  sector companies      which submitted applications to the      Government for  formation of  Joint      sector companies  in  collaboration      with the West Bengal Housing Board.      On 3.9.93 State Government selected      4  private   companies   who   were      willing  to   form   joint   sector      companies  in   collaboration  with      West Bengal  Housing Board  and out      of the  said 4  private  companies,      the  Committee  appointed  for  the      said   purpose    by   the    State      Government selected  two  companies      one of  them being Peerless General      Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, and      such selection was duly approved by      the State Government.      II.  The   joint   sector   company      namely  Bengal   Peerless   Housing      Dev.Co.   Ltd.   is   run   by   an      independent Board of Directors. The      Board of  Directors  consist  of  7      (seven) Directors  out of  which  4      (four) Directors  (two of  them are      Ex-Secretaries, Housing Department,      Govt. of  West Bengal and other two      are  Ex-Commissioners   of  Housing      Board,  who  are  still  the  Board      members  of   West  Bengal  Housing      Board) are  nominated by  the State      Government.  The  Chairmen  of  the      joint sector  company is  nominated      by the State Government and thereby      the State  Government nominees  are      in the majority in the Board.      III. The said  joint sector company      has the  overall responsibility for      the construction and implementation      of the  housing project which shall      be within  the policy frame work of      the  Govt.   of  West  Bengal.  The      housing scheme  shall  be  prepared      and executed as defined in the West      Bengal  Housing   Board  Act.   The      implementation  of   the   project,      marketing and  sale of the dwelling

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 21  

    units will be done by the joint and      control of  State  of  West  Bengal      Housing Board.  The same  shall  be      implemented if and when required by      the  Govt.   of  West   Bengal  and      Housing Board.  Therefore, a  joint      sector company has been constituted      in  the  name  of  Bengal  Peerless      Housing     Development     Company      Limited, strictly to give effect to      the Government  policy  on  serving      the public  interest  of  providing      dwelling  units   to  people  under      schemes  to   be   formulated   and      implemented under  the policy frame      work of  the  State  Government  of      West Bengal  such  schemes  however      have to  be implemented  under  the      overall guidance and control of the      West Bengal Housing Board.      IV.  The   State    Government/West      Bengal Housing  Board will have the      majority in  the Board of Directors      of the  Company. No  activities can      be carried  on by  he joint  sector      company without the approval of the      Government and  without the consent      of the  Government and  without the      consent of  the Government  nominee      Directors.  The  whole  purpose  of      joint sector  company of  the joint      sector  company   is  clearly   for      effectuating the public interest of      providing  dwelling   accommodation      for the homeless people. As already      indicated, the  substantial  number      of dwelling  units in  the  project      the for  the Lower Income Group and      Middle Income  Group.  However,  to      provide subsidised  housing to  the      Lower and  Middle income groups the      joint sectors company has adopted a      suitable mix  of housing of various      groups viz., LIG, MIG and HIG so as      to make  the  project  economically      viable.      The whole  policy  with  which  the      joint sector  company,  the  Bengal      Peerless    Housing     Development      Company    limited,     has    been      functioning  and  has  intended  to      function is  not to  make more than      nominal profit.      V.   LIG  and  MIG  dwelling  units      constitute 73%  of the  total units      that are proposed to be constructed      apart  from   the  additional  land      mentioned above  which  shows  that      the  preponderant   object  of  the      schemes is to provide accommodation      to people  belonging to  the  Lower      Income and  Middle Income Groups at      very  reasonable   rates  and  such      rates are  only possible because of      gross subsidy  by sale of the units

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 21  

    of HIG  which constitutes  only 27%      of the total project.      VI.  It is  submitted  respectfully      that the  housing scheme  which  is      now    being     implemented     is      predominantly and  wholly  for  the      benefit of  the common  people  and      preeminently for public purpose.      VII. From the  facts, it  will thus      clearly appear  that the  land  for      which   the    project   is   being      constructed belongs  to West Bengal      Housing Board  and the joint sector      company have been entrusted only to      implement the  housing  project  of      the Govt.  of West  Bengal and such      work  is  being  done  as  per  the      scheme framed under the West bengal      Housing Board  Act approved  by the      West Bengal Housing Board and under      the overall guidance and control of      the State Government/Housing Board.      Funds  for  the  construction  have      been  provided   for  by   Peerless      General  Finance   and   Investment      Company Limited to the joint sector      company and also recovered advances      from the  prospective allottees  by      dwelling units.  The only financial      contribution  of   the   Government      through Housing  Board  is  to  the      acquisition of equity shares of the      joint sector  company to the extent      of Rs. 10.0 lacs."      The supplementary affidavit aforesaid also sets out the scheme of  the Housing  project and  also the considerations which were  taken into  account while  framing  the  scheme. These may also be set out as under :      "SCHEME OF THE HOUSING PROJECT      I.   The types  of  flats  and  the      sale prices  thereof have also been      settled and  or fixed  by the  West      Bengal Housing  Board and the terms      of sale  provide that escalation of      sale price  of the flat will not be      allowed,   even    if   there   are      additional expenditure  as there in      fact has  been.  The  project  will      comprise  of   912  flats  for  the      people of different income groups.      II. The  eligibility  criteria  for      allotment of  flats  to  public  in      general has  also  been  stipulated      and or specified by the West Bengal      Housing  Board.   The   terms   and      conditions as  such are  as follows      :-      (a)  One member  of the same family      which    includes     husband/wife,      dependent  parents   and  dependent      children can submit one application      only (b)  one dwelling unit will be      allotted  to   one  person  of  the      family and  (c)  those  person  who      does       not       have       any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 21  

    house/flat/building plots  of  land      in Calcutta  Metropolitan area  are      only   eligible    to   apply   for      allotment of flat.      III. Procedure  for   allotment  of      flats to  the public in general has      also been guided by the West Bengal      Housing  Board.   Application   for      allotment of flats was invited from      the public  after wide  publication      in the  newspaper. About  4353 nos,      of   applications   were   received      against 912  flats and thereafter a      lottery was  held in a public place      under the  guidance and supervision      of West  Bengal Housing Board where      Sri. K.N. Sinha. Minister of State.      Sri.  Sailen   Manna   (Padmashree)      alongwith   the   applicants   were      present  to  witness  the  lottery.      Only   those   persons   who   were      successful  in   the  lottery  were      allotted their respective flats. As      a  matter  of  fact,  the  mode  of      allotment  of  flats  was  entirely      based upon  the lottery and neither      the Housing  Board  nor  the  State      Government nor  the  joint  venture      company had any role to play in the      matter  of   allotment   of   flats      according to their choice.      IV.  In he  said Housing complex as      has  been   directed  by  the  West      Bengal  Housing   Board  the  joint      sector company will have to install      sewage treatment  plant and  33  KV      electrical  sub-station   with  the      technical help  of the  West bengal      State Electricity Board.      SCHEME  WAS   FRAMED  TAKING   INTO      CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS      I.   At least  50% of  the dwelling      units are to be planned for the Low      & Middle  Income Group of people of      the  society   who  are  not  in  a      position to  purchase any  dwelling      unit  within   he  urban   area  of      Calcutta  from   any  other  source      because of high price of such flats      which  are   beyond  the  reach  of      common  people.  Accordingly,  sale      price of  the flats  for the  LIG &      MIG dwelling  units were fixed at a      rate as  low as  Rs.349.00 and  Rs.      509.00 per  s.ft and  market  study      reveals   that    in    no    other      metropolis, even in Calcutta, flats      are  provided  at  this  rate  when      market price  of building materials      have gone  high beyond expectation.      In this  scheme 73%  of such  units      are planned  for  this  section  of      society.      II.  No price  escalation shall  be      charged and  flats are to be handed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 21  

    over at  a fixed  price and  within      the scheduled date.      III. The prices of the flats are on      the plinth  area  as  per  National      Building  Code  and  not  on  Super      built-up area.      IV.  The construction  work started      in January,  1995  and  substantial      progress has  been made so that all      the flats can be handed over to the      respective allottees  on or  before      1998 as promised.      It is  respectfully submitted  that      any scheme  to  solve  the  housing      problem  would   promote  a  public      purpose. Such  a scheme need not be      undertaken by  the  State  directly      but may  well be  implemented under      the   supervision,    control   and      guidance of the State. Such purpose      may  be  achieved  also  through  a      joint   sector   company.   It   is      becoming increasingly  necessary to      induce private  enterprise  to  co-      operate with  the State  Government      in particular sector of the economy      for providing  relief as  early  as      possible. In  the context of Act II      of 1948,  the Hon’ble High Court at      Calcutta has  uniformly taken  this      view that  the State can invoke the      provision of  Act II  of  the  1948      where the  State required  to  deal      with any  of the  purposes  covered      under the  said  Act  through  some      other agency including a Company."      It was  submitted that  any scheme to solve the housing problem would  promote a  public purpose  and  that  such  a scheme need  not be undertaken by the State directly but may well be  implemented  under  the  supervision,  control  and guidance of  the State  and  that  such  a  purpose  may  be achieved also  through a  joint sector  company.  Mr.  Reddy submitted that  it was  becoming increasingly  necessary  to induce  private  enterprise  to  cooperate  with  the  State Government in particular sector of the economy for providing relief as early as possible.      In this background it is difficult for us to accept the submissions of  the writ  petitioners that  the purpose  for which the requisition had been made was not a public purpose within the  meaning of  the Act or that the circumstances of the case did not justify the invocation of the provisions of the Act  or that the exercise of powers under that Act was a colourable exercise of power.      At this  stage we may also notice some of the judgments cited at the bar.      In Sureshchanora  C. Mehta  vs. State  of Karnataka and Others (1994  Supp (2)  SCC  511)  Section  17  (5)  of  the Bangalore Development  Authority Act,  1976  was  considered which provided  that every person whose name appeared in the assessment list  of the  local  authority  or  land  revenue recorded shall be served with a notice so that he could make necessary objection to the notification published under sub- section (1)  of Section  17 of  that Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 provided as under :      "During  the   thirty   days   next

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 21  

    following the  day  on  which  such      notification is  published  in  the      official  Gazette   the   Authority      shall  serve   a  notice  on  every      person whose  name appears  in  the      assessment  list   of   the   local      authority or  in the  land  revenue      register as  being primarily liable      to pay  the property  tax  or  land      revenue assessment  on any building      or land  which is  proposed  to  be      acquired in executing the scheme or      in regard  to which  the  authority      proposes to  recover betterment tax      requiring such person to show cause      within thirty days form the date of      the receipt  of the notice why such      acquisition of the building or land      and the  recovery of betterment tax      should not be made."      The objection  of the  appellant in  that case was that since his  name was  entered in  the revenue record he had a right to  the notice.  It appeared  when notice  under  sub- section (1)  of Section  17  was  issued  the  name  of  the appellant was  not found  entered in  the assessment list of the local  authority or  in the land revenue register making him primarily  responsible to  pay land  revenue. The  Court observed that  existence of  the name  of such person in the concerned record  before  publication  of  the  notification under Section  17(1)  was  a  condition  precedent  and  the authority was  not required  to make  a roving inquiry as to who is  the person  entitled to  a notice.  The Court agreed with the  judgment of the karnataka High Court rejecting the contention  of   the  appellant   that  the   authority  the contention of  he appellant that the authority had requisite knowledge as  to who  was  the  owner  of  the  property  in question and  it held  that sub-section  (5), of  Section 17 made it  clear that  notice was required to be served on the person whose  name was found in the revenue register and who was primarily  responsible  for  the  payment  of  the  land revenue. The  High Court had also held that the knowledge of the authority  by any  other process could not be treated as making it  responsible for  serving notice  in terms of sub- section (5) of Section 17 that the knowledge of ownership or interest in  collateral proceedings  was  not  the  deciding criteria. The  Court had  held that  one who was responsible for the  payment of land revenue or property tax would alone be entitled  to the  notice under Section 17 (5) of the Act. The  Calcutta   High  Court   in   the   impugned   judgment distinguished  this   judgment  of   the  Supreme  Court  in Sureshchanora C. Mehta’s case on he ground that in that case the law  itself prescribed  notice to  be served on a person whose name  was entered  in  the  revenue  record.  But  the observations of  the Supreme  Court in  that case  that "the authority is not required to make a roving inquiry as to who is the  person entitled to a notice" is quite apt and has to be given due weight and consideration.      In Winky  Dilawari  (Smt.)  and  another  vs.  Amritsar Improvement Trust,  Amritsar (1996 11 SCC 644) Section 38 of the Punjab  Town Improvement  Act, 1922  envisaged issue  of notice of  proposed acquisition  of lamb.  The section is as under :      "38, Notice of proposed acquisition      of land.  -(1)  During  the  thirty      days next  following the  first day

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 21  

    on which  nay notice  is  published      under Section  36 in respect of any      scheme under  this  Act  the  trust      shall serve a notice on -      (i)  every person  whom  the  trust      has reason  to  believe  after  due      enquiry to  be  the  owner  of  any      immovable  property   which  it  is      proposed to  acquire  in  executing      the scheme.      (ii) the occupier  (who need not be      named)  or  such  premises  is  the      trust  proposes   to   acquire   in      executing the Scheme.      (2)  Such notice shall -      (a) state  that the  trust proposes      to acquire  such property  for  the      purposes of  carrying out  a scheme      under this Act, and      (b)  require  such  person,  if  he      objects  to  such  acquisition,  to      state his reasons in writing within      a period  of sixty  days  from  the      service of the notice.      (3)  Every  such  notice  shall  be      signed by,  or by  the order of the      chairman."      In that  case the  disputed property  was a vacant site and the  appellant had  purchased the  same on  January  24, 1985. Amritsar  Improvement Trust  had framed a scheme under Section 36  of the  Act which  was given  due publicity  and objections invited. Thereafter proceedings were taken up for acquisition of  the land  proposed to  be acquired under the scheme. The  scheme was  approved by the Government on March 19, 1985.  After the  purchase was made by the appellant his name was  not mutated in the records of the Municipality and the question  before  the  Suoreme  Court  was  whether  the failure to  serve the  notice on  the appellant vitiated the approved scheme. Facts are not quite clear from the judgment as to  whom notice had been served but one can safely assume that in  had been served on the person who was the erstwhile owner of  the  property  before  it  was  purchased  by  the appellant.  The  Court  held  that  in  these  circumstances failure to serve notice on the appellant did not vitiate the approved scheme.  The Court also observed that the principle that the registration of sale was constructive notice had no application to  such a  situation. The court on the argument of he  appellant that  registration of  a  document  in  the Office of  the Sub-Registrar was a notice as envisaged under the Registration Act, 1908 observed as under :      "But the  question is  whether  the      public authorities  are expected to      go on  making enquiries in the Sub-      Registrar’s office  as to who would      be  the   owner  of  the  property?      Reasonable   belief,    after   due      enquiry, contemplated under Section      38 (1)  (1) would envisage that the      persons who are reputed to be known      as owners of the immovable property      which was  proposed to  be acquired      after the  Scheme was  approved  by      the  Government,   are  the  actual      owners of  the property.  It is now      settled law  that public  functions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 21  

    are to  be discharged  through  its      officers   and    if    there    is      dereliction on  their part  in  the      performance thereof  and the public      inconvenience  is   enormous,   the      Court    always    considers    the      procedure to  be directory.  It has      always considered,  by a  catena of      decisions  of   his  Court  such  a      procedure to  be directory.  If  it      were a  case where  a reduced owner      whose name has already been entered      in the  municipal takes over a paid      the municipal  takes over  a period      to the  Municipality  or  the  Gram      Panchayat,  as  the  case  may  be,      necessarily there  would  be  scope      for the  authorities to  reasonably      believe, after due enquiry, that he      would  be   the  owner.   If   they      derelict in making such necessarily      it may  be held that its failure to      get the notice served on the owner,      who was believed to be the owner of      the  property,   for  the  proposed      acquisition,      vitiates      the      acquisition made under the Schedule      read with  Section 59  of the  Act.      but if in a short interregnum there      were successive  sales and transfer      of the land, the public authorities      are not  expected to  go on  making      enquiries  in  the  Sub-Registrar’s      office as to who would be the owner      of the  immovable property proposed      to  be   acquired.  The   principle      proposed  to   be   acquired.   The      principle       notice    has    no      application to such a situation."      Constitutional  validity   of  the   West  Bengal  Land (Requisition and  Acquisition) Act.  1948 was  upheld by the Supreme Court  in S.M. Nandy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1971 3 SCR 791). The Court held as under :      "We are,  therefore, of the opinion      that it  is difficult  to hold that      restrictions imposed by the PDS Act      are unreasonable. Fair compensation      has     been      provided      for      requisitioning,      which      is,      determinable by  a Civil  Court and      ultimately by the High Court or the      Supreme   Court,    Regarding   the      necessity  for   requisitioning  it      must necessarily  be  left  to  the      State Government.  It is  true that      there is  no express  provision  to      make a  representation  against  an      order of  requisition but  there is      no bar  to a  representation  being      made after an order is served under      s. 3(2) of the Act."      In H.D.  Vora vs. State of Maharashtra and others. (AIR 1984 SC 866) relying on the earlier judgment of the Court in State of  Bombay vs. Bhanji Munji (1955 1 SCR 777: (AIR 1955 SC 41)  which was  a case  under the Bombay Land Requisition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 21  

Act, 1948, the Court observed that it was not necessary that the order  of requisition must explicitly set out the public purpose for  which it was made and that the only requirement of the  law was  that the  requisitioning must be made for a public purpose  and that  so long  as  there  was  a  public purpose for which an order of requisition was made, it would be valid,  irrespective of  whether such  public purpose was recited in  the order  of requisition  or not.  But then the State Government  has to  show that the order of requisition was made  for a  public purpose  and  that  necessary  facts showing  the   public  purpose   for  which   the  order  of requisition was  made would  have to  be established  by the State Government  from its record to the satisfaction of the Court. In  that case  the Court  held that the order was not made for  public purpose  and further  that the  requisition could not  be for an indefinite period. The Court was of the view that  the order of requisition even though valid ceased to be  valid and  effective  after  the  expiration  of  the reasonable period  of time  but at  the same  time the Court observed that  if was  not necessary  for it  to decide what period of  time might  be regarded  as  reasonable  for  the continuance of  an order  of requisition  in  a  given  case because ultimately  the answer to that question case because ultimately the  answer to  that question  must depend on the facts and  circumstances of  each case. This judgment in our view is of no help to decide the issue now raised before us.      It is  a matter of common knowledge that there is acute shortage of  housing accommodation  both in  rural and urban areas of  the country.  Since late the rural and urban areas of the  country. Since  late the  prices of  the real estate have sky-rocketed  making it  beyond the reach of low income and middle  income people.  State has  a duty  to perform to give shelter  to homeless  people specially to people in the low income  group. In  the present  case State was unable to meet this  gigantic task.  In the  background of shortage of resources which  the State  has the  legislature enacted the Housing Board  Act and constituted the Housing Board to meal the challenge. Housing Board Act was amended to bring in the concept of  joint venture  in order  to tag the resources of the private sector. Thus, a joint feature came into being as disclosed in  the supplementary affidavit of the State as to how the  process of  starting of joint venture had gone into and how  the Board  of Directors of the joint sector company had been  constituted and  how the  State and  Housing Board exercise control over this joint sector enterprise.      Simply because  there is an element of profit could not make the  whole scheme  illegal. A private entrepreneur will certainly look  to some  profit but  to see  that the profit motive does  not lead  to exploitation  even of the rich and that the  houses are  available to  the poor  people and  to middle class  people at nominal o affordable prices, or even on no  profit no loss basis, the Housing Board exercises the necessary control.  It is  certainly  a  public  purpose  to provide houses  to the  community especially  to poor people for whom  the prices  are beyond  their means and they would otherwise be never able to acquire a house.      What has  been done  in the  present case  is that  the profit earned  on sale of flats of HIG have been pumped into to subsidise  the prices of the houses failing in LIG and in this there would certainly be element of profit both for the Housing Board  as well  as the  private company in the joint venture for  selling flats of HIG. We fail to see how public purpose is not being served in the present case.      Court must  shake off  its myth  that public purpose is served only  if the State, or the Housing Board or the joint

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 21  

sector company does not earn any profit. There cannot be any better authority than the State or the statutory corporation to supervise  or monitor  the functions of the joint venture company. Courts will certainly step in if the public purpose is sought to be frustrated.      In the  present case Directors appointed by the Housing Board/State on  the Board  of Directors  of he Joint Venture Company would  certainly see  that no  run  away  profit  is earned and that sale price of HIG houses is guided by market forces but  there is  no exploitation.  Every section of the society needs  protection from  exploitation. It  is however not possible  nor desirable  to lay down any principle as to how this to be done in a particular case.      In  Reg.   v.  Hillingdon   L.B.C.,  Ex   p.  Punlhofer (H.L.(E.)) (1986  1 AC  484) the  court was  considering the power of the housing authority constituted under the Housing (Homeless Persons)  Act 1977 in refusing an application that the applicants  were neither  homeless nor  threatened  with hopelessness. The  applicants. A  married couple, lived with two young  children in  on room  at a  guest house  where no cooking or laundry facilities were available in the premises and no  meals except  breakfasts were provided. Subsequently the housing  authority  reconsidered  the  application,  but having taken  into account the housing conditions prevailing in their  area, they  confirmed their original decision. The applicants  applied  for  judicial  review  of  the  housing authority’s  decision.   Hodgson,  J.  granted  the  relief, holding that  the accommodation to be available for a person and his  family had  to be  appropriate to  the needs of the family and  that no  reasonable housing authority could have come to  the conclusion  that the  accommodation in question was appropriate.  On appeal  to the  Court of  Appeal by the housing authority  the same  was allowed.  Further appeal by the applicants  to the  House of  Lords was  dismissed.  The following observations  of Lord  Brightman who spoke for the Court would be relevant :      "In  the  instant  case,  the  bona      fides of  the  borough  is  not  in      dispute. On  the facts in evidence,      it is  in my opinion plain that the      council were  entitled to find that      the applicants  were  not  homeless      for the  purposes of  the  Homeless      Persons  Act   because   they   had      accommodation within  the  ordinary      meaning of that expression.      My Lords,  I and  troubled  at  the      prolific  use  of  challenging  the      their functions  under the  Act  of      1977. Parliament intended the local      authority to  be the judge of fact.      The Act  abounds with  the  formula      when, or  if, the housing authority      are satisfied  as to this, or that,      or have  reason to believe this, or      that.  Although   the   action   or      inaction of  a local  authority  is      clearly  susceptible   to  judicial      review where they have misconstrued      the Act,  or abused  perversely,  I      think that  great restraint  should      be exercised  in  giving  leave  to      process  by  judicial  review.  The      plight  of   the  homeless   is   a      desperate one,  and the  plight  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 21  

    the applicants  in the present case      commands the  deepest sympathy. But      it   is   not,   in   my   opinion,      appropriate that    the  remedy  of      judicial   review,   which   is   a      discretionary  remedy,   should  be      made use  of to monitor the actions      of local  authorities under the Act      save in  the exceptional  case. The      ground   the    exercise   of    an      administrative discretion  is abuse      of  power   -  e.g.  bad  faith,  a      mistake in construing the limits of      the     power,     a     procedural      irregularity,  or  unreasonableness      in   the    Wednesbury   sense    -      unreasonableness  verging   on   an      absurdity :  see the speech of Lord      Scarman in  Reg. Secretary of State      for  the   Environment,  Ex   parte      Nottinghamshire   County    Council      (1986) A.C. 240, 247-248. Where the      existence  or  non-existence  of  a      fact is  left to  the judgment  and      discretion of  a  public  body  and      that fact involves a broad spectrum      ranging from  the  obvious  to  the      debatable to  the just conceivable,      it is  the duty  of  the  court  to      leave the  decision of that fact to      the public  body to whom Parliament      power save  in a  case where  it is      obvious  that   the  public   body,      consciously or  unconsciously,  are      acting perversely."      In L.  Chandra Kumar  vs. Union  of India  (AIR 1997 SC 1125) the  Court held  that power  of judicial  review  over legislative action  vested in  the High  Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its  basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of the High Courts and Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded. No doubt under the Constitution power of judicial review of the action State  or its authorities is unfettered but restraint should however be the hallmark of judicial review.      The Courts  normally do  not interfere  in  the  policy matters of  the State. If, however, the policy so formulated is against  the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision it  can certainly  be tested  on the principles of judicial review.  When an act falls within the policy of the State which  has been formulated for the benefit of the poor and needy  and which  policy cannot be faulted, court should stay its  hands and  need not  examine the  details minutely with a  hands and need not examine the details minutely with a magnifying  glass  to  find  some  fault  here  and  there magnifying glass  to find  some fault  here and there unless there are  allegations of  mala-fides. An overall view is to be taken  of the  matter and  this potent weapon of judicial review cannot be used indiscriminately.      We find  in the  present back-drop the inability of the State Government and the Housing Board to meet the challenge to achieve  the target  of even constructing 50,000 dwelling units  in  urban  areas  to  tackle  the  acute  problem  of homelessness for different categories of people particularly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 21  

those falling  in Lower Income Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG)  ; he  State legislature  amending  the  Housing Board Act  and providing for incorporation of a joint sector company for  executing the  housing scheme  on the terms and conditions  to   be  approved  by  the  State  Government  ; selection of  the private  entrepreneur for incorporation of the joint  sector company  with  the  Housing  Board  ;  the Constitution of  the Board  of Directors of the joint sector company ;  the control  of the  Housing Board  and the State Government over  the joint  sector company  to  execute  the scheme of  the housing  project ; control on the fixation of precise of  the flats  to be constructed by the joint sector company ;  relevant factors  taken  into  consideration  for execution of the housing project and all these to tackle the urgent and  growing need of providing shelter to the LIG and MIG people  when it  is not  possible for  these  people  to acquire a  house of  their own  with escalating  real estate prices ;  it cannot  be said  that the public purpose is not being served  or  the  incorporation  of  the  joint  sector company viz.  Bengal Peerless  Housing  Development  Company Ltd. and  the execution  of the housing project "Anupama" by this joint  sector company,  in the  given circumstances, on the land  in question  which is  part of the bigger piece of land is  not in  public interest.  The Housing Board acts as regulatory  body  and  the  State  Government  overseas  the housing project  and has  also  imposed  certain  terms  and conditions. No  ulterior purpose  has been  alleged  and  it cannot be  said  that  the  power  exercised  by  the  State authorities are  in any way arbitrary or irrational or there is any  abuse of  power. Rather  the legal compulsion of the State and  the Housing  Board to  get  the  housing  project executed  through   a  joint   sector   company   is   quite understandable. We  also find  the impugned action is within the purview of law and is valid.      Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, judgment of the Division Bench  of the  Calcutta High Court is set aside and the writ  petitions filed  by the respondents are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.