JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– In this rule, the petitioners have challenged the order of requisition dated March 17, 1976 issued by the Collector of 24 Parganas under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 29 were roadside shopkeepers of Madhyamgram and their shops were situate on the crossing of Sodepur Road and Jessore Road. They were carrying on their business by erecting temporary sheds at the said crossing. Their shops were demolished by the Government on December 31, 1975 and they were evicted from the lands they had been occupying on the ground that they were unauthorized occupants of Government lands. Most of them are displaced persons from East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, and they used to maintain them and the members of their respective families out of the income of their shops. After they were dispossessed, they made representations to the respondent No.2, the Administrator, Baraset II Anchalic Parishad, Barasat for making some alternative arrangements so that the shopkeepers of the locality might not loose the only means of their livelihood. On such representations, the respondent No.2 negotiated with the Government of West Bengal for the acquisition of some vacant lands situate near the crossing of the said two roads. During the negotiation by the respondent No.2 with the Government, they were given to understand that a plot of land appertaining to C. S. Plot No. 514, of Khatian No. 143, Mouza Chandnagar, might be acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced roadside shop-keepers, but the cost of such acquisition and compensation money were to be paid by the shop-keepers. It is alleged that they were also given to understand by the Block Development Officer that the displaced shop-keepers might also purchase by private negotiation, portions of the said plot from the owners of the same, namely, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that a Samity named Madhyamgram Pathiparsastha Baboshayi Samity, the respondent No.4, was set up and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1963. The said Samity was set up mainly for the purpose of acquisition of land for the rehabilitation of the displaced roadside shop-keepers as the Government of West Bengal was not agreeable to acquire the said plot for public purpose at Government expense. The petitioner nos. The said Samity was set up mainly for the purpose of acquisition of land for the rehabilitation of the displaced roadside shop-keepers as the Government of West Bengal was not agreeable to acquire the said plot for public purpose at Government expense. The petitioner nos. 6 to 29 purchased different portions of the said C. S. Plot No. 514 from the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 who were the owners of the same, on different dates in January 1976 by registered deeds of sale. Thereafter, they have taken possession of the respective portions of the said plot purchased by them and erected their respective shop-rooms. On March 23, 1976, they came to know for the first time about the impugned order of requisition. It is alleged that the said plot is going to be acquired at the instance and for the benefit of the members of the respondent Samity. Further, it is alleged that the impugned order does not come under the purview of section 3 of the Act. It is contended that as the purported acquisition of the said plot No. 514 is for the purpose of a registered Samity, namely, the respondent No.4, at the expenses of the said Samity, it can only be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act provides as follows :–– "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 area excluded by the State Government by a notification in this behalf, by the construction or reconstruction of dwelling places for 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 it appears to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning : Provided that no land used for the purpose of religious worship or used by an educational or charitable institution shall be requisitioned under this section". 4. 4. Section 3(1) empowers the State Government to requisition any land only for the purposes mentioned therein. This section does not authorize requisition of a land for any purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the section. The first paragraph of the impugned order of requisition is as follows :–– "Whereas, in my opinion, it is necessary for the purpose of (maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities/transport/communication/irrigation/drainage (or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas) by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places for people residing in such areas, viz., for setting up a market for Rehabilitation of the displaced roadside shop-keepers of the Area to requisition the lands described in the schedule below :–– The above portion of the order has been quoted from the original order which has been produced before me by Mr. Sen Gupta, learned Senior Government Advocate. The portions within parenthesis have been deleted in the original order. It appears from the impugned order that the disputed land is sought to be requisitioned for providing proper facilities for transport/communication/irrigation/drainage by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places for people residing in such areas, namely, for setting up a market for Rehabilitation of the displaced roadside shop-keepers of the area. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the purpose as mentioned in the impugned order does not come within the purview of section 3(1) of the Act. It is true that for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage of land can be acquired, but it is not the case of either party that the disputed land is required for any of the said purposes. The construction or re-construction of dwelling places has not, in my opinion any connection with transport, communication, irrigation, or drainage. It can only be connected with the purposes, namely, the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas" but the said words have been deleted from the original order. The words "by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places" as mentioned in section 3(1) only indicate the manner the purpose, namely, the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas will be carried out. The words "by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places" as mentioned in section 3(1) only indicate the manner the purpose, namely, the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas will be carried out. It has been already noticed that the said purpose has been struck out from the impugned order and the only purpose with which the construction or re-construction of dwelling places has been linked up is the purpose for providing facilities for transport, Communication, irrigation or drainage. There is considerable substance in the contention of the petitioners that the purpose which has been mentioned in the impugned order is vague and misleading and also does not constitute a purpose under section 3(1) of the Act. 5. Next, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as the disputed plot is going to be acquired at the instance and for the benefit of the members of the respondent Samity, it is not permissible under, the provisions of the Act. It appears from the letter dated January 21, 1976 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayat, addressed to the Commissioner, Presidency Division, Calcutta that the Government sanctioned the requisition and acquisition of the disputed land as required by Barasat II, Anchalic Parishad provided that the said Anchalic Parishad should give an undertaking in writing that it would pay any additional amount towards the cost of acquisition. In view of the said Government decision, the Additional Collector, 24 Parganas (North) Barasat, by his memo No. 138 LA dated January 31, 1976 requested the Administrator, Barasat II Anchalic Parishad to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- only towards contingent find establishment charges and to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,53,821/- on account of the cost of acquisition of the disputed land with a resolution that the Anchalic Parishad had the necessary financial capacity for acquisition of the same and to pay any additional amount that would be required towards the cost of acquisition. A copy of the said memo was forwarded to the respondent Samity for information and taking necessary action. Thereafter, the Administrator, Barasat II, Anchalic Parishad by his memo no. 193 dated February 11, 1976 asked the Secretary of the respondent Samity to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the P. L. Account of the Parishad. As requested the respondent Samity deposited the said sum of Rs. Thereafter, the Administrator, Barasat II, Anchalic Parishad by his memo no. 193 dated February 11, 1976 asked the Secretary of the respondent Samity to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the P. L. Account of the Parishad. As requested the respondent Samity deposited the said sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- in the said account on February 11, 1976. Before depositing the said sum, the respondent Samity through some of its members also executed a bond on February 9, 1976 whereby the said members bound themselves jointly and severally to deposit such amount as the Administrator, Barasat II, Anchalic Parishad might demand of them to pay within such time and on such terms and conditions as would be mutually fixed or would be fixed by the said Administrator. It is also stated in the bond that they on their own accord proposed to deposit the said sum by way of advance, for establishment of a Bazar for the members of the Samity. It is, therefore, clear from the correspondence and the said bond that the proposed requisition or acquisition are for the benefit of the members of the respondent Samity. The purposes which are mentioned in section 3(1) of the Act are undoubtedly public purposes. The Act does not make any provision for requisition or acquisition of lands for the benefit of any individual, society or company, like the Land Acquisition Act which provides for acquisition of land for a company. In the absence of any specific provision in that regard any requisition or acquisition of land for the purpose of an individual or a society or a company will not be a public purpose or a purpose for the community. If the disputed land is requisitioned, the same has to be distributed among the members of the respondent Samity and not to the other displaced roadside shop-keepers who are not its members. The petitioners are not the members of the respondent Samity, though they are admittedly displaced roadside shop-keepers. In the event of the disputed land being requisitioned, it is apparent that the petitioners will not be allotted any portion of the same. Such requisition or acquisition is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order of requisition cannot be sustained, for it is in violation of the provisions of the Act. 6. Such requisition or acquisition is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order of requisition cannot be sustained, for it is in violation of the provisions of the Act. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of requisition is quashed and let a writ in the nature of Certiorari issued in that regard. The Government, however, will be at liberty to issue a fresh order of requisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. The Rule is made absolute, but there will be no order as to costs. The petitioners are restrained from changing the character of the disputed land for a period of four weeks from date so as to enable the respondents to prefer an appeal against the judgment.