JUDGMENT This application is directed against a notice, annexure 'C', issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. Respondent No.2, on December 8. 1972 whereby in the schedule of the previous notice issued on May 24, 1972, the figure 101A, Rakhaldas Addy Road had been substituted in place of 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road. 2. The facts as alleged in the petition, in short, are that the Respondent No.2 issued a notice of requisition under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquistion) Act, 1948, Act II of 1948. requisitioning a portion of premises No. 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road in Holding No.86 of the Calcutta. Municipality for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for sinking a big diameter tubewell for a bustee area as required by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. After the issuance of the said notice the Respondent No. 3 proceeded to encroach upon the land of the petitioner who is a Receiver of the debuttar estate of the deities, Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Thakur Jew and Sri Sri Iswar Gopeswar Siva Thakur Jew, whereupon the petitioner as Receiver filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 293(A) of 1972, in the 2nd. Court of Munsif at Alipore for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority from encroaching upon the petitioner's land for the purpose of sinking tubewell. In that suit the petitioner obtained an order of temporary injunction. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the meantime this impugned notice was issued by the Respondent No.2 whereby the schedule of the original notice of requisition was amended by substituting premises No. 101A, Rakhal Das Addy Road in place of premises No. 103A, Rakhal Das Addy Road. It is against this notice this Rule has been obtained. 3. Mr. Mukharji, learned Advocate for the petitioner, raises two fold contentions in support of the said Rule. The first dimension of Mr. It is against this notice this Rule has been obtained. 3. Mr. Mukharji, learned Advocate for the petitioner, raises two fold contentions in support of the said Rule. The first dimension of Mr. Mukharji's contention is that the purported notice of amendment is illegal and unwarranted inasmuch as there is no opinion of the Collector as to the necessity of this particular plot to be requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for the purpose of sinking deep tubewell to supply drinking water to the people of the locality which is a condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of requisition. In support of this contention Mr. Mukharji further submits that it has not been stated by the Respondents that in the file for requisition there is the satisfaction of the Collector as to the necessity of requisition portion of premises No. 101 A, Rakhal Das Addy Road for the particular public purpose specified in the notice of requisition and as such by simply making this amendment in the schedule, this notice of requisition cannot be said to be in compliance with the provisions of section 3(1) of the said Act. 4. The second dimension of Mr. Mukharji's submission is that the notice of requisition is patently bad inasmuch as the portion of the aforesaid premises 'intended to be requisitioned has not been specified at all and as such this amended order is not sustainable in law. It is on this ground also Mr. Mukharji assailed the validity of the said notice of requisition. 5. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3 on the other hand submits that the requisition in question being admittedly for a public purpose, the provisions of section 3 (1) of the said Act empowers the Collector to make necessary amendment in the notice of requisition inasmuch as the existence of public purpose for which the aforesaid premises is intended to be requisitioned is not disputed. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that this plot was lying vacant and the petitioner made an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for permission to lease out this land to a local College for the purpose of ensuring a regular income to the debuttar estate which is suffering very much for paucity of fund for maintaining the seba puja of the deities. In support of his said contention Mr. In support of his said contention Mr. Bagchi drew my attention to annexure 'A' to the petition which comprises the order of the learned Subordinate Judge granting permission to the Receiver to lease out the property to the governing body of the local College not exceeding 51 years. Relying on this Mr. Bagchi tries to contend that as the debuttar estate need,; money, by this requisition of the premises in question, if given effect to, the petitioner will get proper compensation in accordance with the provision,; of the Land Acquisition Act and as such the estate will not sustain any loss whatsoever. Mr. Bagchi, therefore, submits that this order of requisition cannot be assailed as bad. 6. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the original order of requisition issued on May 24, 1972 but has only challenged the order dated December 11, 1972 whereby only the schedule of the original requisition notice has been amended and a., such this application is not maintainable in law. Mr. Basu further submitted that the original order of requisition dated May 24, 1972 being for a public purpose and the Collector having been satisfied about the necessity of requisitioning this plot for the specific public purpose mentioned in the said notice of requisition the impugned notice which is nothing but a mere amendment of the schedule of the land mentioned in the original notice of requisition need not comply with the provisions of section 3. sub-section (1), of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that this amended notice cannot be challenged as invalid or unwarranted. 7. Having heard the respective contentions advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties it appears on a close scrutiny of the provisions of section 3 (1) of the said Act that the issuance of a valid notice of requisition is dependent upon the formation of an opinion by the Collector as to the necessity of requisitioning the particular land for the specific public purpose mentioned therein and unless and until this condition precedent is satisfied the notice of requisition will be per se bad and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice of amendment does not show nor any paper or document has been produced on behalf of the respondents to show that the Collector has applied his mind and has formed an opinion that the portion of premises No. 101A, Rakhal Das Addy Road was necessary to be requisitioned for the purpose of sinking a deep tubewel1 for supplying drinking water to the people of the locality. In that view of the matter, I hold that this notice of requisition dated December 8, 1972 is not in accordance with the said Act and as such it is not sustainable in law. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on this count succeeds. 8. It also is evident from the amended notice itself that no specification of the portion of premises No. 101A, Rakhal Das Addy Road which is intended to be requisitioned has been made in the purported notice. It has been consistently held by this Court in (1) 70 CWN 503, (2) 74 CWN 349 and (3) 71 CWN 129 that a notice of requisition or acquisition of a portion of plot of land without specifying the particular portion intended to be requisitioned is per se bad. Therefore, the impugned notice of requisition having not specified the particular portion intended to be requisitioned is also bad and as such, it is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the premises stated hereinbefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having succeeded this Rule is made absolute. Let an appropriate writ be issued for quashing the impugned notice of requisition. This will not, however, prevent the respondents from issuing subsequent notice of requisition, if they so desire in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.