Land requisition for sewerage scheme upheld, but proper notice to the deity was required before further proceedings.

Requisition of land for a State sewerage scheme was treated as outside Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, because the acquisition was by the Government through the Public Health Department and not a municipal request. The religious-worship objection also failed since the land was found to be vacant and mere dedication was insufficient to attract the statutory protection. The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was upheld as constitutional: compulsory requisition causing substantial deprivation of property fell within Article 31 rather than Article 19(1)(f), and the absence of fuller procedural safeguards did not invalidate Section 3(1). Proper notice to the deity was nevertheless required before further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requisition of land for the sewerage scheme was invalid for contravention of Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and because the land was allegedly used for religious worship. (ii) Whether Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction on the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the requisition proceeding could continue without proper notice to the deity and whether the notice served was defective.

Issue (i): Whether the requisition of land for the sewerage scheme was invalid for contravention of Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and because the land was allegedly used for religious worship.

Analysis: The land was requisitioned as part of a State sewerage scheme carried out by the Government through the Public Health Department, and not as a municipal acquisition within Section 98 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. Section 98, which contemplates acquisition at the request of the Commissioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was therefore held not to govern the case. The objection based on the proviso to Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act also failed on the materials, because the plot was a vacant piece of land and the alleged religious user was not established as actual worship. Mere dedication was insufficient to attract the proviso.

Conclusion: The requisition was not invalid under Section 98, and the religious-worship objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction on the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that compulsory requisition under the Act resulted in substantial deprivation of property because possession was taken for an indefinite period, the statute contemplated eventual acquisition, and the practical enjoyment of ownership was materially displaced. On that footing, Article 31, and not Article 19(1)(f), governed the field. The Court further held that the Act was a summary emergency measure for public purposes and that, in the constitutional setting of compulsory deprivation of property, the absence of objection proceedings, appeal, or wider procedural safeguards did not render Section 3 invalid under Article 19. Section 3 was therefore upheld as intra vires.

Conclusion: Section 3(1) of the Act was valid and constitutional.

Issue (iii): Whether the requisition proceeding could continue without proper notice to the deity and whether the notice served was defective.

Analysis: The notice served on the individual petitioner was procedurally imperfect, and the deity, as the real owner and principal interested party after dedication, was entitled to notice before the proceeding continued. The proceeding under the requisitioning law was not treated as a strict judicial proceeding, but compliance with the rules required service on all interested parties. The defect as to notice to the deity was treated as material and required correction before further steps could be taken.

Conclusion: The proceeding could not continue without notice to the deity, and fresh service was directed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory validity of the requisition and of Section 3 failed, but the petitioners obtained partial relief by requiring proper notice to be served on the deity and the individual petitioner before the requisition proceeding could proceed further.

Ratio Decidendi: Where requisition of property under a statute causes substantial deprivation of the owner's effective rights, the matter falls within Article 31 rather than Article 19(1)(f), and the requisitioning authority must also comply with the statutory notice requirements before proceeding.

---