ORDER: 1. This writ petition was moved on August 10, 1984, on behalf of five petitioners, challenging the order of requisition, without annexing the order itself, as according to the petitioners, no order of requisition has been served upon the writ petitioners and Ajit Kumar Sengupta J, was pleased to issue the civil order together with interim order in terms prayer (f) of the writ petition till August 31. 1984, with liberty to the petitioners to apply for, extension thereof upon notice to the respondents. 2. Subsequently, on August 21, 1984. the said Learned Judge modified the interim order in presence of Mr. Nara Narayan Gooptu, Learned Advocate General, and Mr. Indrajit Sen appearing for the Municipal Commissioners and Mr. Tapan Kumar Sengupta for the State respondents and thereby directing the respondents not to change the nature and character of the suit land, till disposal of this application. 3. This writ petition has came up for final hearing before me on October 11, 1988, ~nd thereafter it was heard on subsequent days. 4. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukperjee, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners at the final hearing of the writ petition, has placed the following points in support of the writ petition. 5. The petitioners challenged the order of requisition for about 64 acres of land mentioned in annexure 'A' at page 30 of the writ petition which has been requisitioned, in exercise of power under s. 3(1A) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition), Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act II of 1948). 6. According to the petitioners, no copy of the order of requisition was ever served upon the writ petitioners and, as such, the petitioners were not in a position to annex the copy of the requisition order. 7. It is further the case of the writ petitioners that copy of the resolution of the Board of Commissioners, dated September 26, 1982, not having been disclosed at the hearing of the writ petition, the Court is entitled to take adverse presumption, as according to Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the present petitioners, no order of requisition could be passed under the provisions of Act IT of 1948, in view of the clear provision of s. 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act XV of 1932). 8. Mukherjee appearing for the present petitioners, no order of requisition could be passed under the provisions of Act IT of 1948, in view of the clear provision of s. 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act XV of 1932). 8. By the provisions of s. 98 of Act XV of 1932 following provisions have been enacted :"Acquisition of land-(1) When any land, whether within or without the limits of a Municipality, is required(a) for the purposes of this Act, or (b) for the recoupment of the cost or any-portion of the cost of carrying out any such purpose, the State Government may, at the request of the Commissioners at a meeting, proceed to acquire it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). (2) Before requesting the State Government to acquire land for the purpose referred to in clause (b) of sub-so (1) the Commissioners shall obtain previous sanction of the State Government and give due notice of their intention and an opportunity to any objector, who appears within such period as they may fix, to be heard in this connection. (3) On payment by the Commissioners of the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and of any other. charges incurred in acquiring the land including costs, if any, incurred by the Stare Government in proceedings subsequent to acquisition concerning enhancement of the award for the land, the land shall vest in the Commissioner. (4) The Commissioners shall be bound to pay to the State Government the cost, including all charges and costs referred to in sub-so (3). of any land acquired for the Commissioners on their application under the provisions of sub-s. (1)." 9. According to the petitioners, they are owners of the land which was sought to be requisitioned by the order of requisition passed under s. 3(1) of Act II of 1948. for the purpose of construction of "Super Market" by the Rishra Municipality. 10. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that as by the relevant resolution of the Municipality nowhere the proposal was made for requisition but for acquisition the Court is entitled to take adverse presumption with regard to that. 11. In the next place, Mr. for the purpose of construction of "Super Market" by the Rishra Municipality. 10. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that as by the relevant resolution of the Municipality nowhere the proposal was made for requisition but for acquisition the Court is entitled to take adverse presumption with regard to that. 11. In the next place, Mr. Mukherjee having referred to the original provisions of s. 24 of the Hooghly River Bridge Act, 1969, which contained the provisions of "compulsory acquisition of land", in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subsequently an amendment had to be resorted to by the State Government by amending the said provisions of s. 24 and by incorporating compulsory acquisition or requisition and acquisition of land by passing amendment Act of Hooghly River (Amendment) Act 1974, and submits that as by reason of s. 98 of the Act XV of 1932, no express power of requisition having been given to the State Government, the State Government cannot issue any order of requisition for requisitioning the land, which is permanently needed by the Municipality for construction of "Super Market". 12. In connection with this submission Mr. Mukherjee has referred to an un-reported judgment delivered by And Kumar Sen and Samir Kumar Mukherjee n., dated August 7, 1985, in FMAT No. 2035 of 1985 (Vivekanandu Sammilani Club, appellant v. Sri Ajoy Kumar Sharma & Ors. Respondents) wherein the Division Bench of this Court, arising out of an interlocutory proceeding in granting interim order in connection with the requisition proceeding relating to requirement of Vivekananda Sammilani Club, appellant before the Appeal court, maintained the injunction, as there was a strong prima facie case in favour of the original writ petitioner. 13. It appears that the Division Bench has noted the submissions of Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee appearing before Their Lordships and maintained the interim order, without taking the trouble of deciding the matter and this Court is being informed at the time of hearing of the writ petition, that the writ petition has not been decided by any Learned Judge of this Court by this time. 14. Mr. Indrajit Sen Learned Advocate, appearing for the Rishra Municipality, led by Mr. Nara Narayan Gooptu, Learned Advocate General submitted the following facts for consideration of this Court: 15. 14. Mr. Indrajit Sen Learned Advocate, appearing for the Rishra Municipality, led by Mr. Nara Narayan Gooptu, Learned Advocate General submitted the following facts for consideration of this Court: 15. In or about the month of September, 1981, the Rishra Municipality came to know that there was suitable vacant plot of land in Mouza Rishra being J.L. No. 27, P. S. Serampore, District Hooghly, which was suitable for the purpose of comtructing a "Super Market" and accordingly a proposal was sent to the Deputy Secretary Local Government and Urban Development Government of West Bengal by letter da ted April 22, 1982. 16. In the said proposal the following recitals were made in the proposal for requisition and acquisition of land measuring 64 acres for Rishra Municipality, under Act II of 1948. 17. In the said proposal, it was made specifically clear that it has become necessary to run "Super Market" with a view to growing industrial town and better living conditions of public in general of Rishra and it has also been made clear in the said letter that cost of acquisition will be borne by the Municipality. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid requisition the Deputy Secretary of Government of West Bengal, Department of Local Government and Urban Development, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta, issued a letter to the Collector of Hooghly, containing the proposal for requisition and acquisition of land for a "Super Market" in the Rishra Municipality by letter dated May 18, 1984. 19. On the basis of the said proposal, the State Government formed the requisite opinion and passed order of requisition, in terms of provisions of s. 3(1) of Act of 1948, and took possession of the land on August 10, 1984, and possession Certificate to that effect was given to the Municipality on behalf of the Collector, Hooghly. 20. Thus, according to Mr. Sen, the suit property was requisitioned by the State Government for the '"public purpose" namely, for construction of "Super Market" which cannot be disputed by the writ petitioners. 21. Mr. 20. Thus, according to Mr. Sen, the suit property was requisitioned by the State Government for the '"public purpose" namely, for construction of "Super Market" which cannot be disputed by the writ petitioners. 21. Mr. Tapan Kumar Sengupta Learned Advocate, appearing for the State, has contested the writ petition by relying on an affidavit affirmed by Mridul Dasgupta, the Land Acquisition Collector, on September 10; 19R4, and the relevant portion from the said affidavit is placed hereinbelow : "I further say that the lands were required for maintaining supply of services essential to the life of the community and not for the purpose as specified in the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976. So, there was no bar for application of the provision of Act II of 1948". 22. Regarding non-service of the notice, the deponent in paragraph 20 of the said affidavit denied the allegation and as ertions that due notices have not been served upon the petitioners no I and 3 but, according to the deponent, they refused to receive the notices and accordingly notices were served by hanging and notice was served on petitioner 5 under the Certificate of Posting. 23. The deponent further stated that as per Revisional Settlement Record of Rights and as per list supplied by (he Municipal Authority the petitioners no.2 and 4 do not appear to be owner or interested persons and, as such, no notices were served upon petitioners no. 2 and 4. 24. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings this Court has to decide the following points in the instant writ petition. 2 and 4. 24. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings this Court has to decide the following points in the instant writ petition. (a) Whether in view of the substantive provisions contained in s. 9R of the Bengal Municipal Act .1932 (Act XV of 1932) no power or requisition could be exercised by the State Government in exercise of power under West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act 1948 (Act II of 1948.) (b) To view of the amendment of Hooghly River Bridge Act, 1974 and thereby amending s. 24 of the Original Act by incorporating compulsory acquisition or requisition and acquisition of land, without similar amendment in s. 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act the Municipality is precluded from exercising power under S. 3 of Act IT of 1948 (c) Whether non-service of notice upon the writ petitioners who were not inclined to receive the same an j service by hanging will affect I he order of requisition and/or acquisition under the provision of Act 11 of 1948 25. Regarding the first point, I am of the view, since Act II of 1948 is a later Act of 1948 and the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 is an earlier Act, there could not be any occasion on the part of the legislature to take note of the later Act, which had to be passed by the State legislature to provide for requisition and speedy acquisition of land for certain purpose. 26 . For this purpose it will be necessary to go through the preamble of Act II of 1948, which runs as follows:- . "Whereas it is 'expedient to provide for the requisition and speedy acquisition of land for the purposes of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community increasing employment opportunities for the people by establishing commercial estates and industrial estates in different areas, providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage and creating better living conditions in urban or rural areas by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas or for purposes connected therewith and incidental thereto". 27. 27. Accordingly, in my view, Act II of 1948, being the later Act, having overriding effect over all existing Acts, the State Government need not take recourse to the provisions of s. 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 in the matter of acquisition of the property if the State Government is of opinion that this land is needed for speedy requisition and acquisition for which purpose the Act of 1948 has been enacted by the State legislature. 28. Regarding the second point, in my view, because of the overriding effect of the provision of Act II of 1948 over all other pre-existing Acts, the State Government is not required to amend the provision of s.98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, because of the reasons put forward hereinabove by me. 29. Regarding the point no. 3, in my view, non-service of order of requisition, as some of the petitioners refused to accept the order of requisition does not vitiate the order as the Municipality formed the requisite opinion that there is definitely public purpose behind it. 30. Before parting, this Court may refer to a judgment of this Court delivered by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J, in the case of Howroh Mill Limited v. State of West Bengal & ors. reported in 1988(1) CLJ 455 ( 1988 (1) CHN 367 wherein the Learned Judge, in paragraph 8 of the said judgment held that no order of requisition could be passed for acquisition of land for "a company", as the Land Acquisition Act 1894 laid down elaborate procedure for acquisition of land for a company and it is permissible to acquire property for a private company for a public purpose, where the word "public purpose" was not defined. 31. As in the present case the land is required by a local body namely Rishra Municipality, for construction of "Super Market", in my view, there is a definite "public purpose" behind the order of acquisition and' which has been disclosed in the affidavit affirmed both on behalf of the Commissioners of Rishra Municipality and its Chairman and on behalf of the State of West Bengal. 32. Therefore, in my view, the judgment referred to in Howrah Mill's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 33. 32. Therefore, in my view, the judgment referred to in Howrah Mill's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 33. In the result, all the points argued on behalf of the petitioners are liable to fail and the writ petition is entitled to be dismissed and all interim orders are liable to be vacated. 34. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs. Prayer for stay of operation of this. order is considered and refused. Let xerox copies of this order be given to the Learned. Advocates for the parties on observing all necessary formalities. Petition dismissed.