JUDGMENT The Government of West Bengal by Order No. 14/74 Regn. dated April, 16 in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 had requisitioned the premises described as Messrs. Radha Films Studio at 51 Russa Road South, 1st Lane, Calcutta. It is not disputed that the purpose of the said requisition was for establishment of a Television Studio at Calcutta. It is also not disputed that the Government had taken over possession of the said requisitioned property and at present the Television Studio stands on the said premises. 2. The State Government by a Notification dated 1st June, 1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notified that the said premises was likely to be required for a public purpose namely for accommodating the Television Station, the Films Division and the Coloured Film Laboratory. The petitioner claims to have filed an objection under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act against the said proposed acquisition. I find no substance in the allegation of the petitioner that without disposing of the said objection under section 5(A) of the Act, the State Government had issued a, declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 25th January, 1976 in respect of the said premises. The State respondent have produced the original records and I find therefrom that the petitioner was the sole objector under section 5(A) of the Act. The same was fixed for hearing on 13th October, 1976. According to the Order Sheet maintained by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 13th October, 1976 the petitioner was heard and the matter was directed to be put on 16th October, 1976. On 17th October, 1976 the report was placed in the file and the same was forwarded to the State Government. In the above view, as already stated, the petitioner’s objection under section 5(A) was heard and disposed of. Thereafter, the impugned declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. It may be also pointed out that the petitioner has not specifically impugned the said declaration under section 6 in the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner took a point in the writ petition that an acquisition under Land Acquisition Act of a property already under requisition was not permissible in law. Mr. It may be also pointed out that the petitioner has not specifically impugned the said declaration under section 6 in the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner took a point in the writ petition that an acquisition under Land Acquisition Act of a property already under requisition was not permissible in law. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not seriously pressed the said point. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the added respondent No. 6 has placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Collector, Akola & Ors. v. Ram Chandra & Ors., reported in 1968 (1) S.C.R. 401 . In the said case, the land owned by the respondents were initially requisitioned under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose. The respondents had filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay challenging the validity of the said order on the ground that the Act was a temporary Act. Therefore, the power would inhere to the Government only during the, time it subsisted; so an order passed for a permanent purpose could not be contemplated under the said Act. The High Court had accepted the said objection and quashed the order. The Supreme Court had reversed the said decision, inter alia, holding that the power to requisition under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act could be exercised whether the public purpose was temporary or not. The Supreme Court had further observed at page 405 as follows :- "We do not also see any antithesis between the power to requisition and the power of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Neither of the two Acts contains any provision under which it can be said that if one is acted upon, the other cannot. Indeed, Part VI of the Land Acquisition Act provides for temporary occupation of waste or arable land needed for public purpose or for a company and empowers the appropriate Government to direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for such purpose as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from the commencement of such occupation. Apart from these provisions in the Land Acquisition Act there are several State Acts which empower the appropriate Governments to acquire property which is subject to requisitioning orders. Apart from these provisions in the Land Acquisition Act there are several State Acts which empower the appropriate Governments to acquire property which is subject to requisitioning orders. If there is an emergency to meet which the power to requisition is exercised there is nothing in the Act to prevent the authority at a subsequent date to initiate proceedings in a suitable case for permanent acquisition. The exercise of power under the Requisitioning Act does not exhaust or make incompatible the exercise of power under the Land Acquisition Act. The initiation of proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act after requisitioning the lands under section 5 (1) of the Act does not and cannot mean abuse of the power under the provision of the Act. In our view the High Court was in error in holding that the power to requisition under the Act cannot be exercised where the public purpose is not temporary or that the exercise of that powers for the purposes of rehabilitation of flood sufferers was either in abuse of or unjustified under the Act." 4. The above decision is binding upon me and, therefore, I respectfully follow the stamp and hold that there is no legal bar in the way of the State Government acquiring a property which is already under requisition. I may at once point out that in case a power of requisition or acquisition is malafide exercised, the Court exercising writ jurisdiction will be entitled to strike down the same on the ground of malafide. 5. The decision of D. Basu, J, in (2) Dhone Gopal Mukherjee & others, v. The Secretary, Land and Lund Revenue, reported in AIR 1966, Calcutta, 348 upon which Mr. Mukherjee relied does not support the extreme contention that a property under requisition cannot be acquired. D. Basu, J., at page 353 of the report had himself observed that he was not unmindful that it would be open for the State Government to proceed afresh under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act after the order of release from requisition was made. D. Basu, J., at page 353 of the report had himself observed that he was not unmindful that it would be open for the State Government to proceed afresh under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act after the order of release from requisition was made. But His Lordship was constrained to make the Rule absolute on the ground that the original purpose for which the requisition under Rule 75 (A) of the Defence of India Rules was made ceased to exist at least in 1949-50 and, therefore, under section 6 of the Act 30 of 1952 the Government was under a statutory duty to make the order of derequisition immediately. But the Government had retained the land without making such order and thereby the Government was found to be in illegal possession. The basis of the decision of Dhone Gopal Mukherjee's case was that the provision of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act and any other law could not be invoked to save the Government from its liability consequent upon its being in illegal possessions. The same constituted malafide. In the instant case, it is not contended that the purpose for which requisition had been made has ceased to exist. On the other hand, the purposes, for which the requisition was made and the purpose for which the acquisition is now proposed are substantially the same. The possession of the State or its allottee in the requisitioned property has not been claimed to be wrongful or illegal. 6. There is also no basis for apprehension that the claims of persons interested in the compensation for the requisitioned property would be in jeopardy by reason of the acquisition of the said requisitioned property. The requisition of the property would obviously end the moment the property vests under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore during the entire requisition period, the State would be bound to pay compensation in accordance with law. The State Government would be also bound to pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the said property to persons interested. Therefore there is no possibility of deprivation of the right of compensation of the persons interested for the requisition period. 7. The State Government would be also bound to pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the said property to persons interested. Therefore there is no possibility of deprivation of the right of compensation of the persons interested for the requisition period. 7. I find also no valid reason why the determination of the compensation for the acquisition of property should be kept in abeyance till such time as the question of payment of compensation for requisitioning the property is finalised. There could be no question of anomaly or inconsistency by reason of simultaneously holding the said two proceedings. The proceedings for assessment of compensation under the West Bengal Promises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and under the Land Acquisition Act should be proceeded with and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In fact, I propose to direct the State respondents to expeditiously dispose of the compensation matters under both the Acts in the manner indicated below :- The State respondents have placed before me the official records relating to assessment of rent compensation for the requisitioned premises No. 51, Russa Road South, 1st Lane, Calcutta. It appears that as early as 28th December, 1977 recommendations were made for payment of the recurring compensation. A draft proposal for sanction to the payment of rent compensation was put up for approval before the First Land Acquisition Collector, but, thereafter no further action appears to have been taken and the approval of the Government has not been as yet sought for and obtained. The Collector in determining the amount of compensation under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 is required to take into consideration the matters specified in section 12 of the said Act. The Collector is also under a statutory duty under section 13 of the said Act to enquire into the respective rights of all persons interested in the premises and to decide in the manner specified therein. Section 14 of the said Act ‘inter, alia, provides that in case of a dispute arising as to the person or persons to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable or as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, the Collector shall keep the said amount in revenue deposit till there has been a settlement of the dispute. In the absence of an agreement about the amount of the compensation the State Government is enjoined by law to appoint a District Judge or an Additional District Judge as Arbitrator for determining the compensation payable. Therefore, in case such agreement is not reached, the State Government is required to proceed in terms of section 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. 8. The Land Acquisition Collector, I understand, has partly heard the matters relating to awarding of compensation for acquisition of the property in question. It is also necessary that the Collector should be directed to expeditiously make his Award so that the person interested may take further steps in accordance with law. 9. I, accordingly, dispose of the Rule in the following terms:- I direct, the Collector to decide within three months from date whether or not the amount of compensation payable for the requisitioning the aforesaid premises can be fixed by agreement. In case, the said amount cannot be fixed by agreement, the Collector will inform the State Government that no agreement can be reached and the State Government within three months from the date of the receipt of the said communication shall appoint a District Judge or an Additional District Judge as an Arbitrator in the manner laid down in section 11(1) of the West Bengal premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947. The Collector also within three months shall pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. I also direct the Land Acquisition Collector to make his Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act within three months from this date in accordance with law. I make it clear that I am not making any observation either as regards the determination of the compensations or apportionment of the same amount to the persons interested. All questions of title, possession and claim to receive compensation are left open for determination in the appropriate manner and in the appropriate forum. There will be no order for costs. Let a copy of this order be prepared by Office and handed over the same to Mr. Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the State.