JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are co-sharers and purchased some properties obtained the Rule against an order of requisition under section 3(1A) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), made in case No 84 (Act II) of 1972-73. The said order is at Annexure 'B'. 2. They have contended to have purchased the properties (hereinafter referred to as the said properties) from others who had lawful title to them. It has been further contended that the said properties were duly recorded in their names in the finally published record-or-rights as well as in Revisional Settlement operations. There is also no dispute that the said properties are situated on the eastern side of Mandaria Khat (hereinafter referred to as the said Khat) in the village of Mandaria and the water from the same is discharged to the river Damodar, which is to the south of the said properties. 3. The said properties were initially sought to be requisitioned under the provisions of the said Act in case No. 17 (Act II) of 1972-73 for the purpose of providing proper facilities for transport and communication viz., for silt clearance of Mandaria Khal. Against the said order, some of the petitioners obtained Civil Rule No. 543 (W) of 1973, contending that notice under section 3(1)(a) and 5 were not served on them and the plots sought to be so requisitioned, were not required for the purpose of silt clearance of the said Khal. The validity, bonafide and the purpose of the said proceedings was also challenged. It was also contended that the lands in question were not in the bed of the said Khal and the purpose in question was certainly not for widening the same. The said Civil Rule, it appears has been disposed of on September 8, 1975 by directing that the authorities concerned should not excavate the leads in question without serving any notice under the said Act. 4. The notice (Annexure "B") impeached in this Rule was issued thereafter and more particularly on April 7, 1973, stating the purpose for providing proper facilities for irrigation. and drainage viz, for silt clearance of the said Khal. In support of the Rule Mr. 4. The notice (Annexure "B") impeached in this Rule was issued thereafter and more particularly on April 7, 1973, stating the purpose for providing proper facilities for irrigation. and drainage viz, for silt clearance of the said Khal. In support of the Rule Mr. Panda submitted that the entire proceeding was vitiated because firstly there was, not only no due formation of opinion by the competent authority but the authority concerned acted mainly on the dictates of others and secondly, for the purposes as mentioned in the notice viz., silt clearance of the said Khal, no new land was required to be acquired. In support of his first submission Mr. Panda placed the notification in Civil Rule No. 543(w) of 1972 and the one in the present case and submitted that since the first notification mentioned the purpose for providing facilities for transport and communication, for silt clearance of the said Khal and the second one speaks of irrigation and drainage for the same, there was admitted non-application of mind or formation of due opinion. It was submitted that silt clearance in the instant case was the action and not the purpose. Mr. Panda then placed the application for vacating the interim order in this case and submitted that from the statements made therein it is apparent that the power was exercised on the dictates of the Irrigation Department. Mr. Panda then submitted that there was thus two opinions formed by the Collector for the same action viz., silt clearance of the said Khal and that itself could be enough to show and establish non-application of mind or not forming the opinion bona fide and such inaction would be enough to set aside the impugned notification in Annexure 'B'. It was further submitted that in view of the order made in Civil Rule No. 543(w) of 1973, the present notification in Annexure 'B" should not have been issued also and such fact was argued in support of the second submission by Mr. Panda viz., in view of the determination in the said Civil Rule, acquisition of new lands was improper and unnecessary. To substantiate his arguments on the requirement of due formation of the necessary opinion Mr. Panda relied on the determinations in the case of (1) Sri Lakshmi Janardan Jew & Anr. Panda viz., in view of the determination in the said Civil Rule, acquisition of new lands was improper and unnecessary. To substantiate his arguments on the requirement of due formation of the necessary opinion Mr. Panda relied on the determinations in the case of (1) Sri Lakshmi Janardan Jew & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1959 Calcutta 402 wherein it has been observed that: "It is one of the essential pre-conditions that the Provincial Government or the delegate must from an opinion that the land was necessary for the objects mentioned therein. Where it is the delegate who exercised the power, it is the delegate who must form the opinion. If it can be established that he did not form any opinion but merely acted under orders of the Government, then, indeed, the order would be invalid," Apart from the points as recorded hereinbefore no other point was urged by Mr. Panda. 5. Mr. Roy appearing for the Respondents submitted with a reference to the statements in the application for vacating the interim order that all and relevant records were placed before the appropriate authorities, on the basis of which due opinion was formed about the bona fides of and the need for the requisition and in fact when such opinion has been formed on such and due consideration of the materials and records, this Court should neither scrutinise the validity or bonafide of the opinion as formed nor interfere with such determination in this jurisdiction. Mr. Roy also submitted that when admittedly malafide in such action has not been conclusively proved or established, no interference should also be made. In support of his contentions, Mr. Roy placed reliance on the case of (2) Kali Prosad Poddar v. Additional District Magistrate Howrah, 1976 (2) CLJ 98 . In that case it was contended that the appropriate authority was neither satisfied about the public purpose before the order of requisition under section 3(1) of the said Act was made nor applied its mind before making the order of requisition. In that case it was contended that the appropriate authority was neither satisfied about the public purpose before the order of requisition under section 3(1) of the said Act was made nor applied its mind before making the order of requisition. From a reference to the records in that case, which were produced before him at the time of hearing, T.K. Basu, J. was satisfied that all the relevant facts including the purpose for which the requisition was proposed, were put up before the authority concerned before the order of requisition was signed and as such came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the arguments as made and which are noted hereinbefore. In this case also, Mr. Roy produced the relevant record. wherefrom it appears that all the relevant files and records were duly placed before the authority concerned along with the requisition by the Irrigation Department before making the impugned order. When no other contrary evidence is available from the records on the question of the application of mind, in respectful agreement with the determination as made in the case of (2) Kali Prosad Podder v. Additional District Magistrate, Howrah (supra) I hold that application of mind and due formation of the opinion will have to or can be presumed. Mr. Roy also submitted that the purpose in the instant case being "silt clearance" of the said Khal, the manner of execution of the same viz., whether for "proper facilities for transport and communication" or "irrigation and drainage", would be of immaterial consideration and as such the arguments advanced by Mr. Panda are of no avail and without any substance. On a proper consideration of the notice in Annexure "B" and the earlier notice in Civil Rule No. 543(W) of 1973 it appears that the dominant purpose of the notifications is "silt clearance" of the said Khal. Such being the purpose and not the action as contended by Mr. Panda. I am of the view that the arguments as advanced by him are really of no avail, assistance or substance. Such being the purpose and not the action as contended by Mr. Panda. I am of the view that the arguments as advanced by him are really of no avail, assistance or substance. The object in the instant case being "silt clearance" of the said Khal, the method or manner of execution or the action for completion or fulfilment of the same, although shown differently in the two notices as mentioned hereinbefore would not ordinarily make the requisition bad on the grounds as argued even if the first notification was not given affect to or was acted upon. In the facts of the present case it also appears that Civil Rule No. 543(W) of 1973, wherein the earlier notice was impeached on the ground of non-service of notice was disposed of with corresponding liberty to the Respondents therein to proceed after the necessary service of notice. Since no submissions were made by the petitioner on the non-service of notice in this case so no determination is required to be made on that point and in that view of the matter the notice in the instant case should be deemed to have been duly served. It can be held and found without hesitation that the instant requisition was really made pursuant to the express liberty given in the earlier Civil Rule viz., to proceed in the matter after serving notice under the provisions of the said Act. I am further of the view that the purpose of the notifications being one and the same viz., "silt clearance" of the said Khal, the mentioning of a different method or mode in the subsequent notice different from those of the earlier, would not mean abandonment of the purpose. 6. In view of the above, the points urged by Mr. Panda fail and as such the Rule should be discharged and I order accordingly. There will however be no order for costs.