Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 351 (CAL)

TANDON BROS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1988-08-26

PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE

body1988
PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, Messrs. Tandon Brothers, involve determination of identical questions of fact and law and the reliefs made in the second writ petition are dependent upon adjudication of the earlier proceedings, and as such, the hearing of these two writ petitions is taken up together, by "consent of parties. " ( 2 ) THE Civil Rule No. 13128 (W) of 1979 was moved on September 13, 1979, before Sabyasachi Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:" (A) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents from not giving any effect or further effect of the impugned Order, dated 15th December 1977, Annexure "e". (b) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records of the case so that on perusal of such records the impugned order, dated 15th December 1977 (Annexure E) may be set aside and quashed and/or conscionable justice may be done between the parties. (c) to issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents to take any action of the impugned Order, dated 15th December 1977 (Annexure D ). (d) to issue a Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) after hearing the causes shown if any to make the rule absolute. (f) to pass such other or further Order or Orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper. (g) to pass any other appropriate Writ, Order and/or erection. (h) to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents and their servants or agents to make effort to transfer of the lands from the date of passing of the Order under Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act to the Union of India till the disposal of the Rule. (h) to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents and their servants or agents to make effort to transfer of the lands from the date of passing of the Order under Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act to the Union of India till the disposal of the Rule. " ( 3 ) THE second writ petition, which was moved on September 4, 1986, being C. O. 10642 (W) of 1986, the petitioner firm prayed, inter alia for the following reliefs :" (A) to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to de-requisition the lands not covered under Notice under Section 7 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952; (b) to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents concerned to acquire the property covered under Notice under Section 7 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Immovable Property Act, 1952; (c) to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents concerned to produce the records, the Order and/or notice of Requisition (Annexure A) and the Notice of Acquisition (Annexure C) may be set aside, quashed and/or a conscionable justice may be done between the parties. (d) to a Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above (e) to issue any other Writ, Order and/or direction; (f) after hearing the causes, shown, if any, to make the Rule absolute, (g) to pass such Order or further Order or Orders as to your Lordship may seen fit and proper. "however, it appears that the above prayers (cc) and (ccc) were amended as per Order of the Court, dated April 18, 1988. ( 4 ) THE facts of the cases are as follows: the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and proprietor of the "tea Estate", known as "rohini Tea Estate" which has been purchased by the petitioner on or about January 30, 1960, in a public auction held by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta. The said Tea Estate comprised of a total area of 5,042. 86 acres of land, including 1100 acres of land under Tea cultivation and consists of several Mouzas of free-hold and lease-hold lands held under the Government of West Bengal. The said Tea Estate comprised of a total area of 5,042. 86 acres of land, including 1100 acres of land under Tea cultivation and consists of several Mouzas of free-hold and lease-hold lands held under the Government of West Bengal. At the time of purchase of the said Tea Estate, there was no machinery or equipment existing therein and after purchase of the said Tea Estate, the petitioner invested a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 for purchase of machinery and equipment and for clearing jungles and making the Tea Estate fit for cultivation. On or about November 1, 1962, a notice under Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953) was issued and the petitioner duly filed objection on or about November 22, 1962. In the said objection, the petitioner stated that 777. 12 acres out of 1451. 40 acres mentioned, in the said notice, dated November 1, 1962, would be taken over by the State Government, as surplus. However, no action was taken by the State Government upon the said petition of objection filed and after nearly five and half years, that is, on or about June 21, 1967, another notice was served repeating the self same object of the earlier notice, dated November 1, 1962. Thereafter, during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, between October 20, 1964 and November 11, 1964, the petitioner was served with several notices under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, issued by the appropriate Authority under the Defence of India Act, expressing the intention of taking over an requisition the major portion of the land comprising tea bushes of the said Tea Estate for the purpose of Defence of India and under the said Order of requisition, out of total area of 5042. 88 acres, about 2427. 57 acres were requisitioned, including 1000 acres under actual tea cultivation and the tea bushes, which were existing at the relevant time were sold in auction by the military authorities. The petitioner thereafter claimed compensation and also received part payment towards the said compensation. The Authorities under the Defence of India Act had already taken possession subject to derequisition and/or permanent acquisition in due course. The petitioner thereafter claimed compensation and also received part payment towards the said compensation. The Authorities under the Defence of India Act had already taken possession subject to derequisition and/or permanent acquisition in due course. ( 5 ) AT the time of requisition, there were 16,50,080 tea bushes, but the Authorities concerned under the Defence of India Act, noted only 7,37,355 tea bushes. Though there were assurances by the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling, in his letter No. 177la, dated February 14, 1968, that actual verification would be made, but the verification was not actually made by the said authorities. ( 6 ) BETWEEN January 21, 1969 and February 25, 1969, several notices, under Section 7 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act) were served whereby the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the said lands under requisition should not be acquired permanently and in reply thereto, the petitioner duly filed the petition showing causes as required under the law and being convinced that there was little chance of getting back those requisitioned lands, moved the appropriate Authorities for payment of compensation for the lands taken over. ( 7 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeeling, the respondent No. 10 intimated by letter No. 1857 LA, dated August 30, 1968, that no further payment will be made until any decision under Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is arrived at and communicated by the State Government with respect to the lands comprised in the said Tea Estate and the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a Rule, being C. R. No. 4251 (W) of 1969, which was disposed of on. April 11, 1975, by directing the respondents therein to determine the compensation payable in respect of the lands in question, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months from the date or within a period of 6 months from the date of disposal of Civil Rule No. 4171 (W) of 1974 issued against the proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the said Act. ( 8 ) ON or about August 26, 1969, the petitioner was served with a notice hearing No. 1621 L. Ref. ( 8 ) ON or about August 26, 1969, the petitioner was served with a notice hearing No. 1621 L. Ref. L-236/60, dated August 26, 1969, whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the Darjeeling Tea Estate (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee, in connection with the proceeding, under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, and the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Rule, being Civil Rule. No. 6128 (W) of 1968 was obtained on November 22, 1973, and the said Rule was disposed of by directing the respondents to dispose of the proceedings under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date of the Order. ( 9 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner was served with a notice, dated March 20, s1973, issued by the Deputy Secretary, respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Darjeeling District Tea Estate (Resumption of Land Committee ). In pursuance of the said notice and on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, an Order was communicated to the petitioner by Order, dated April 6, 1973, and by notice, dated April 17, 1973, the petitioner was directed to "deliver possession of the lands", declared as surplus to the requirement of the garden, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kurseong, by April 19, 1973. ( 10 ) BEING aggrieved with this Order, the petitioner moved another writ petition before this Court challenging, inter alia, the notice, dated March 20, 1973, the Order, dated April 6, 1973 and April 17, 1973, and the Rule, being C. R. No. 4171 (W) of 1973 was obtained along with interim Order of injunction. ( 10 ) BEING aggrieved with this Order, the petitioner moved another writ petition before this Court challenging, inter alia, the notice, dated March 20, 1973, the Order, dated April 6, 1973 and April 17, 1973, and the Rule, being C. R. No. 4171 (W) of 1973 was obtained along with interim Order of injunction. The said Rule came up for final hearing on June 16, 1977 before the Chittatosh Mookerjee, J, (as His Lordship then was) and His Lordship was pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the Orders, passed under Section 6 (3) of the said Act and the consequential Orders, dated March 20, 1973, April 6, 1973 and April 17, 1973, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and directing the State of West Bengal, to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to pass a "fresh Order", under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, within a period of 6 months from the date, holding inter alia, as follows:" (A) that until and unless the lands be permanently acquired the ownership of the requisitioned land still remains with the petitioner. The said interest of the petitioner were liable to vest subject to its rights to retain the land comprised in the Tea Garden subject to the provision of Section 6 (1) (f) read with Section 6 (3) of the said Act. (b) no Order was made for acquisition of the requisitioned lands. The requisition of these lands is continuing under the provision of Section 6 of the Act 30 of 1952. (v) the provisions of Act 30 of 1952 and the provisions of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act operate in different fields and, as such, there is no question of any repugnancy between the two Acts. The materials on records do ant establish that the impugned proceedings under Section 6 (3) of the said Act was mala fide and for collateral purpose. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, on September 23, 1977, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal directed the petitioner to appear before the Secretary, Land Utilisation and Reforms and Land and Land Revenue Department, on November 1, 1977, at 11 A. M. in his chamber at Writers' Buildings. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, on September 23, 1977, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal directed the petitioner to appear before the Secretary, Land Utilisation and Reforms and Land and Land Revenue Department, on November 1, 1977, at 11 A. M. in his chamber at Writers' Buildings. Along with the notice, a copy of the recommendations made by the Darjeeling District Tea Estates (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee, dated March 29, 1973, was however, enclosed. ( 12 ) THE petitioner filed objection to the said notice, inter alia, contending, as follows:" (A) to allow the petitioner to use the garden relating to the lands mentioned in items Nos. 3 and 4 of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and (b) that there is no land which may be deemed to be surplus within the meaning of Section 6 (3) of the said Act. " ( 13 ) ON November 21, 1977, the petitioner received a letter, dated November 14, 1977, issued by the Deputy Secretary, whereby the petitioner was directed to furnish the following particulars, namely, (i) Figure of Tea produced in land 5 years from 1960 to 1964 as furnished by you to the Tea Board. (ii) Balance sheet in respect of tea garden for the year 1960 to 1964 and (iii) A statement of land revenue paid by the company since the date of purchase of the garden with copy of renta1receipts. ( 14 ) THEREAFTER, the hearing of 6 (3) proceeding under the 1953 Act was concluded on November 28, 1977, and since then nothing has been communicated to the petitioner till January 27, 1978. By the letter, dated January 27, 1978, the petitioner requested the Secretary to send a copy of the Order, as early as possible. ( 15 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner sent several reminders since January 1978 till August 22, 1978, but no reply was received and ultimately, the petitioner consulting his lawyer on September 16, 1978, requested the Secretary of the Department to supply either with a certified copy or a plain copy of the Order and on September 19, 1978, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the said Order and ultimately on April 17, 1979, the petitioner received a copy of the said Order. ( 16 ) AT the time of hearing of the matter before the Secretary, according to the petitioner, it was made clear to the petitioner that the area measuring about 2542. 29 acres of land, which was in occupation of the military Authorities were required to be held "permanently", by the Military Authorities. ( 17 ) AFTER placing the aforesaid chequered history of the case, Mr. Ranjit. Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, submitted that a decision was taken by the Darjeeling District Tea Garden Advisory Committee to resume lands measuring 3878 acres including the land requisitioned under Defence of India Act. Out of this 3878 acres, land measuring about 1421. 92 are forest land and against this decision the present writ petitioner earlier moved this Court and obtained a Civil Rule, being C. R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974, which was made absolute, as stated hereinabove and the State Government was directed to hear the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the State Government was also directed to form its own opinion. It was further held that the lands remained under requisition by the Military Authorities and, as such, it is for the State Government "to form its opinion", as to whether in the event, the lands be "derequisitioned", they will be required to be made part of the Tea Garden and in deciding the same the State Government may consider the conduct of the petitioner, its real intention, physical or other limitations, if any, in bringing the said land or any part thereof under cultivation, in the event in future the land is derequisitioned. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Banerjee, after the last Order of remand the matter was heard for several days before the respondent Authority and several documents were produced, namely, figure of tea production from 1960-1964, Balance Sheet for the period 1962-64, payment of land revenue, in addition to the following documents: (1) Plans and progress of the garden. (2) List of machineries which were installed by the Company. (3) Original bills of tea seeds purchased for new plantation. (4) Copy of bills for purchase of fertiliser. (5) Account sale statement from M/s. J. Thomas and Co. Tea Brokers. (6) Copies of monthly returns in form No. RT 3 submitted to Tea Board. (2) List of machineries which were installed by the Company. (3) Original bills of tea seeds purchased for new plantation. (4) Copy of bills for purchase of fertiliser. (5) Account sale statement from M/s. J. Thomas and Co. Tea Brokers. (6) Copies of monthly returns in form No. RT 3 submitted to Tea Board. ( 19 ) REFERRING to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, Mr. Banerjee submitted that by the impugned Order, it has been made clear that the resumption of land has been made for collateral purpose and extracts of some materials on record are set out below: (A) The area of 4151 acres which being surplus to the requirement of Rohini Tea Estate is being resumed by the State Government and the area would be made available for the Defence purpose. (B) 28th August 1967 - Sri M. L. Chakrabarti passed an Order for resumption of land and directed to issue Orders accordingly. (C) 24th March 1969 - Report by Sri M. L. Chakrabarti states that compensation under L. A. Act to owner to give them more than that if the same be taken under F. A. Act and for that transfer to defence, they will have to pay loss. Legal opinion may be obtained. (D) 27th March 1969, a similar Report by A. K. Sinha which suggests that resumption under Section 6 (3) makes it possible for the Government to transfer to military under Land Transfer Rules when the latter will pay the State Government the market value. (E) 28th March, 1969 - Order by H. Konar to issue Notice under Section 6 (3 ). No legal opinion is necessary. Government can transfer the land to military. ( 20 ) REFERRING to the Affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the State Government, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the grounds of defence are follows: (I) The petitioner is a "post vesting transferee. " (ii) That the notice under Section 7 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, was served, but the defence is that the said notice was a proposal and no Order has been made. (iii) As soon as possession of the lands have been taken over by the Government after resumption under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act, the ownership has been vested in the State and obviously the effect of requisition has been ceased. (iii) As soon as possession of the lands have been taken over by the Government after resumption under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act, the ownership has been vested in the State and obviously the effect of requisition has been ceased. (iv) The possession was taken over under Section 10 (1) of the said Act. (v) The competent authority concluded the proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act and there is no scope for derequisitioning or acquisitioning. (vi) Action taken by the authority concerned under Section 6 (3) of 1953 Act was fair in the interest of public service. (viii) It appears that the writ petitioner is not very much interested in the tea plantation and they are more interested in getting higher compensation from the Government through acquisition of land. Mrs. Manjuri Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has forcefully submitted that the petitioner has no right, as the petitioner is a 'post vesting transferee' and further the petitioner is interested in getting higher compensation, than in praying for order of derequisition and/or permanent acquisition. ( 21 ) LET us now consider the pleadings of the parties for adjudication of the issues involved in the matter, which are as follows: (A) Admittedly, the tea estate in question held and possessed by the writ petitioner, is still under requisition and the question is whether under such circumstances, a proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act, at all is available to the State Government. (B) The question of post vesting transferee does not arise in the facts of the present case, as to whether the writ petitioner is a post vesting transferee or not as the parties are bound by the earlier directions contained in the judgments referred to hereinabove. (C) Admittedly, in the instant case previously by an Order, the land measuring about 777. 12 acres had been resumed. Then whether the present proceeding is in the nature of review, and if so, whether there is any material before the State Government, for taking such action and/or review. (D) Whether the instant proceeding under Section 6 (3) of 1953 Act is bona fide and whether the State Government has acted in legal malice. (E) Whether there was any application of mind by the authorities concerned. (D) Whether the instant proceeding under Section 6 (3) of 1953 Act is bona fide and whether the State Government has acted in legal malice. (E) Whether there was any application of mind by the authorities concerned. ( 22 ) WITH regard to the first point as to whether the tea estate is under the purview of the Order of requisition and the question is whether in such circumstances, a proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act is available to the State Government, it can be observed by this Court that the writ petitioner as well as the State Government are "equally bound", by the earlier decisions of this Court, including the decision of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J (as His Lordship then was), but one fact cannot be lost sight of, that in the earlier proceedings before this Court, the earlier Single J3ench decision, in the case of Dhanagopal Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1966 Calcutta 348 has not at all been considered, wherein it has been held that the land of the writ petitioner, being requisitioned under Rule 75a of the Rules framed under Defence of India Act, the petitioner made demands and continued representations for de-requisition of land and ultimately the Government of West Bengal by letter, dated April 19, 1955, requested the petitioner to let them know whether they were agreeable to dispose of the land measuring about 7. 14 acres to the Government at the rate prevailing in December 1946. ( 23 ) IN that case, the petitioner having disapproved, the Government issued the Notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development Planning Act, 1948. ( 24 ) IN the said judgment of Dhanagopal Mukherjee (supra), it has been. held by Durgadas Basu, J, that for the purpose for which the land had been requisitioned in 1944, had "ceased to exist", and it was incumbent for the respondent No. 5 to make an "order of release" of the said land from the purview of the Order of requisition, under Section 6 of the Act of 1952, and to restore the possession of land to the petitioner before doing anything else, since the lands were not required to be acquired under the Act of 1952. At page 352 of the said report, it has been observed that the said proceeding was not for claiming terminal compensation after release of the property from, requisition, but for nullifying the proceedings under West Bengal Act, on the ground that the Act could not apply unless the land is first released from requisition and there must not be any over-lapping of the proceeding arising out of one Act, during the subsistence of the requisition proceedings under an earlier Act. ( 25 ) IN the said case, it has been further held that what benefit the petitioner would derive could be established only if the petitioners were allowed to bring appropriate proceedings for claiming compensation after the Order from requisition is actually made. In the said case, it was further observed that the Act of 1952, gives substantial benefit falling from an Order of requisition, from which (whatever be the actual amount) the petitioners would be deprived, if the respondents are allowed to acquire the lands, under the West Bengal Act, before the Order of release from the requisition is made. ( 26 ) IN the said judgment, D. Basu, J, further observed that Mr. Dutt appearing for the State suggested that once the title of the petitioner was acquired under the Act, the recovery of the right to possession of the property, which was vested, in the Central Government by virtue of the requisition, was merely a matter of inter-departmental arrangement between the two Governments. Dutt appearing for the State suggested that once the title of the petitioner was acquired under the Act, the recovery of the right to possession of the property, which was vested, in the Central Government by virtue of the requisition, was merely a matter of inter-departmental arrangement between the two Governments. ( 27 ) EVEN then, this possibility was not accepted by Justice D. Base and it has been held that it is the duty of the Central Government to de-requisition the property first and restore it to the possession of the petitioner and it would be an act of gross illegality, on the part of the Central Government to pass on the property to the State Government and such illegality would be presumed to support the impugned act of the State Government ( 28 ) IN paragraph 30 of the said judgment, it has been held that under Section 6 (1) of the Act: of 1952, it was the duty of the Competent Authority not only to release the property from the requisition, but also to restore the property to the possession of the displaced owner by evicting any squatters, who might have occupied the property, since requisition owing to default and negligence of those Public Officers, whose duty it was to protect the property in the possession of the Government from unlawful occupants. ( 29 ) IN paragraph 33 of the said judgment, it has been held that the respondent should be commanded to make order of release from requisition and to restore possession to the petitioner as required under Section 6 of the 1952 Act, and proceeding under West Bengal Act should be annulled. ( 30 ) ALTHOUGH this case was not originally cited by Mr. Banerjee, but this case has been referred by this Court at the initial stage of hearing of the present writ petition and this Court had adjourned the hearing of the writ petition in order to consider. both the parties whether the judgment referred to in Dhanagopal's case should be made applicable in the facts of the present case. Banerjee, but this case has been referred by this Court at the initial stage of hearing of the present writ petition and this Court had adjourned the hearing of the writ petition in order to consider. both the parties whether the judgment referred to in Dhanagopal's case should be made applicable in the facts of the present case. ( 31 ) IN my view, the decision reported in Dhanagopal's case (supra) is applicable in full force in the facts of the present case, but there is one impediment that the parties are bound by the earlier decisions of this Court, including the decision of Chittatosh Mookerjee, J, (as His Lordship then was) referred to above. ( 32 ) IT may be usefully observed that before Chittatosh Mookerjee, J,. (as His Lordship then was) Dhanagopal's case was not cited, otherwise, His Lordship would have taken a different view instead of remanding the matter back for adjudication of the proceedings under Section 6 (3) of the said Act. ( 33 ) AS regards the second point referred to hereinabove, it is admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner being a 'post vesting transferee' had applied for permission from the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue had approved, the transfer subject to the proceeding, under Section 6 (3) of the said Act. ( 34 ) AS such, the right of the petitioner cannot be waived, more so, Section 6 (3) of the said Act starts with a 'non obstante clause' "notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 and 5 and Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act speaks subject to provision of Section 3, land, comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land used for the purpose of livestock breeding, poultry, farming or dairy". ( 35 ) AS such, if sub-sections are left together, it would be clear from the statute itself that the plea of 'post vesting transferee' submitted on behalf of the respondent, does not hold good, in the instant case. ( 36 ) AS regards point No. 3, in my view, admittedly previously, there was an Order by the Government of West Bengal intimating resumption of 7. 77. 21 acres of land and the writ petitioners did not object to that. ( 36 ) AS regards point No. 3, in my view, admittedly previously, there was an Order by the Government of West Bengal intimating resumption of 7. 77. 21 acres of land and the writ petitioners did not object to that. Therefore, subsequent proceedings is in the "nature of review" and there is no material on record to show that 'such review' is needed for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the said Act, and could be available to the State Government. ( 37 ) AS such, I am of the view that such review is not permitted. ( 38 ) IN the result, the writ petition is entitled to succeed on. These grounds. ( 39 ) ACCORDINGLY, the first writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, dated December 15, 1977, which is Annexure "e" of the writ petition. ( 40 ) REGARDING the second writ petition, wherein the petitioner has challenged the inaction of the Authorities concerned not to take steps fox acquisition of the land mentioned in the notice under Section 7 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, it can be observed that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. D. Vora v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 866 and Jiwani Devi Patraki, AIR 1984 SC 1707 , in which the Supreme Court has deprecated the continuance of the Order of requisition for "an indefinite period", without acquiring the property. ( 41 ) IN the said case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:"the power of requisition is exercisable by the Government only for a public purpose which is of a transitory character. If the public purpose for which the premises are required is of a perennial or permanent character from the very inception, no Order can be passed requisitioning the premises and in such a case the Order of requisition, if passed, would be a fraud upon the statute, for the Government would be requisitioning the premises when really speaking they want the premises for acquisition, the object of taking the premises being not transitory but permanent in character. Where the purpose for which the premises are required is of such a character that from the very inception it can never be served by requisitioning the premises but can be achieved only by acquiring the property which would be the case where the purpose is of a permanent character or likely to subsist for an indefinite period of time, the government may acquire the premises but it certainly cannot requisition the premises and continue the requisitioning indefinitely. Here in the present case the Order of requisition was made as far back as 9th April 1951 and even if it was made for housing a homeless person and the appellant at that time fell within the category of homeless person, it cannot be allowed to continue for such an inordinately long period as thirty years. We must, therefore, hold that the Order of requisition even if it was valid when made, ceased to be valid and elective after the expiration of a reasonable period of time. " ( 42 ) IN view of above, the law in this regard has been set at rest by the Supreme Court by this time that if the Authority intends to acquire the property, the Authority cannot remain idle for indefinite period by passing the Order of requisition and continue the same and, as such, the second writ petition is entitled to succeed, to this extent that a Writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued against the Union of India, Deputy Director, Military Land and Cantonments, Eastern Command (ML and C) Fort William, Calcutta, being respondent No. 6 and other appropriate Authorities by commanding them to take steps for acquisition of the property in respect of "rohini Tea Estate", which is continuing under the purview of requisition, either under the Defence of India Act and Rules and/or the Act of 1952, forthwith. ( 43 ) THE said respondent No. 6 is also directed to proceed in the said regard, in accordance with law to acquire the land and to determine the compensation for acquisition, as well as compensation for requisition, within a period of 6 months from communication of this Order. ( 44 ) THE second writ petition is also allowed accordingly. 44a. There will be no Order as to cost. ( 45 ) THE prayer made by Mrs. Manjuri Gupta for stay of operation of ande judgment in the first case, viz. ( 44 ) THE second writ petition is also allowed accordingly. 44a. There will be no Order as to cost. ( 45 ) THE prayer made by Mrs. Manjuri Gupta for stay of operation of ande judgment in the first case, viz. , C. R. 13128 (W), is considered. This judgment will not be operative for a period of one month from this date. Petition allowed.