Merged territory extension and requisition authority upheld for Chandernagore under the land acquisition law.

The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was held applicable to Chandernagore after merger and assimilation into West Bengal, because the merger legislation extended existing West Bengal laws and any earlier inconsistent privilege or immunity ceased. The requisition orders were also upheld: the Collector's notification was read by reference to the district as it existed when power was exercised, so land in Chandernagore fell within territorial reach, and the later special appointment of the Additional District Magistrate validly conferred Collector-like functions. The constitutional challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) failed, and the legal objections to the requisition and the Act were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 applied to Chandernagore after its merger and assimilation into West Bengal; (ii) Whether the Collector of Hooghly, or the specially appointed officer, had authority to issue the requisition orders; (iii) Whether the Act was ultra vires Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 applied to Chandernagore after its merger and assimilation into West Bengal.

Analysis: The merger legislation made Chandernagore part of West Bengal and extended laws already in force in West Bengal generally to Chandernagore. The assimilation legislation reinforced that result for laws relating to matters in the State List, and the Act dealing with requisition and acquisition of property fell within that field. The absence of a corresponding Chandernagore law did not prevent the extension of the West Bengal enactment, because the repeal provision operated only where a corresponding law existed. Any earlier privilege or immunity inconsistent with the extended law ceased to survive.

Conclusion: The Act applied to Chandernagore, and this objection failed against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector of Hooghly, or the specially appointed officer, had authority to issue the requisition orders.

Analysis: The notification authorising Collectors to requisition land had to be read with the district as it existed when the power was exercised, not as it stood on the date of the notification. Since Chandernagore had become part of the district area, requisition of land there was within the territorial reach of the notification. In addition, the later notification specially appointing the Additional District Magistrate to perform the functions of Collector amounted to a special appointment within the statutory definition of Collector.

Conclusion: The requisition orders were within authority and this objection also failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was ultra vires Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional question was referred to a Constitution Bench, which answered it against the challenge.

Conclusion: The Act was not ultra vires Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenges to the requisition orders and to the validity of the Act were rejected, leaving the dismissal of the appeal in place with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A law extended by merger and assimilation statutes applies to the merged territory despite the absence of a corresponding local law, and a notification authorising a Collector operates according to the district's territorial limits as they exist when power is exercised; a special appointment notification can validly confer the Collector's functions on another officer.

---