Case: M/s. Bejoy Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Others

a development scheme, and at subsequent stages. The Land Planning Committee set up under the Act, does not come into the picture, at the stage when the Government issues a notification, under S. 4 of the Act. In this connection, it is necessary to note that the expression notified area, under S. 2 (c) of the Act, means an area declared, under sub-s. (1) of S. 4, to be a notified area. The State Government is given power under S. 4, by issue of a notification in the Gazette, to declare any area, specified in the notification, to be a notified area, if it is satisfied that any land, in such area, is needed or is likely to be needed, for any public purpose. There is no provision, either under the Act or the rules framed thereunder, making it obligatory on the part of the State Government to consult the Land Planning Committee at this stage. Nor are we able to find any provision, in the Act or the Rules, which gives a right to the Land Planning Committee to be consulted, or to propose any case, before a notification is issued by the Government, under S. 4 of the Act. There is no duty imposed, or function assigned, to the Land Planning Committee, either under the Act or the Rules, to participate at this stage.25. No doubt, Mr. Bishan Narain, in this connection, referred us to the proceedings, dated January 21, 1955, of the 270th Meeting of the Land Planning Committee, as supporting his contention that it is the Land Planning Committee that has proposed the acquisition of the lands in question under the Act, and, therefore, the matter comes under Item 18 of Standing Order No 2. In the proceedings, referred to by learned counsel, it is stated that the Planning Committee considered a proposal submitted by the third respondent herein, for acquisition and development of 28.59 acres of land, in the villages of Ghola and Natagarh. There is also a recommendation, by the Land Planning Committee, that the land, referred to by the third respondent, is needed for a public purpose and, therefore, it recommended that a notification, under S. 4 of the Act, be issued. No doubt, it is seen that the Land Planning Committee has taken some interest in this matter and supported the proposal of the third respondent regarding the acquisition. But, the question is, as to whether it is one of the duties or functions of the Land Planning Committee, which it is bound to discharge, either under the Act or the Rules. The answer, in our view, must be in the negative.A reference to the Act and the Rules would show that there is no such right given to the Land Planning Committee. It may be that that Committee advises the Government on particular matters or makes suggestions to the Government. The Government may also consult that body and act on its advise or suggestions. But, before Item No. 18 of Standing Order No. 2 can be made applicable, it must be established that there is a duty or an obligation, on the Government to issue a notification, under S. 4 of the Act only in consultation with the Land Planning Committee, in which case, it may be stated that the Committee is discharging a duty under the Act. We do not find any such provision making it obligatory, on the part of the Government, to consult the Land Planning Committee, at that stage. The terms of S. 4 also make it clear that it is really on the satisfaction of the Government, that any land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, that a notification is issued, declaring that area to be a notified area.26. The Act and the Rules clearly show that from the stage of S.5, when the prescribed authority, viz., the Land Planning Committee, is directed to prepare a development scheme by the State Government, the said Committee is discharging its statutory functions, under the Act.27. To sum up, we are not inclined, to accept the contentions of the appellant, that the issue of a notification, under S.4 of the Act, is a matter which should have been dealt with by the Minister-in-charge himself, on the basis that it is covered by Item 18 of Standing Order No. 2. That item does not as pointed out above, apply. If that is so, it is clear that the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act, and the satisfaction to be arrived at, that the land, in the area in question, is required or is likely to be required for a public purpose, are matters which do not require to be dealt with by the Minister himself. Under Standing Order No.5 the Minister-in charge has authorised the Secretary to permit a Deputy or an Assistant Secretary of the Department, to dispose of certain types of cases and the Secretary has also issued an order, which has been referred to earlier, in conformity with Standing Order No. 5 and it is by virtue of this provision that the notification, under S. 4, was issued by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal. We are in entire agreement with the reasons given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court for upholding the validity of the notification, dated February 4, 1955, issued, under S. 4 of the Act.28. Before we conclude, we should also make it clear that, in this case no contention was advanced that matters connected with the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act cannot be delegated by the Minister-in-charge and that they have to be dealt with by the Minister himself. We had, therefore no occasion to consider this aspect of the matter. As pointed out above the entire arguments have proceeded on the basis that there has been no such delegation, by the Minister, under the Standing Orders made by him.29.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are also in agreement with the views expressed by the High Court that the Governors personal satisfaction was not necessary in this case as, this is not an item of business, with respect to which, the Governor is, by or under the Constitution, required to act in his discretion. Although the executive Government of a State is vested in the Governor, actually it is carried on by Ministers; and, in this particular case, under Rr. 4 and 5 of the Rules of Business, referred to above, the business of Government is to be transacted in the various departments specified in the First Schedule thereof. Item, 5 therein is the Department of Land and Land Revenue and the Governor has allotted the business of that Department to a Minister. We are further in agreement with the views of the High Court that the said Minister-in-charge, has got power to make Standing Orders regarding the disposal of cases, in his Department, under the Rules of Business issued by the Governor on August 25, 1951, under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. In this case, there is no controversy that the Minister-in-charge, of the Department of Land and Land Revenue, has made Standing Orders on November 29, 1951, by virtue of powers given to him under Rr. 19 and 20 of the Rules ofdue regard to the Act and the Rules, and the matter dealt with by Item No. 18, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that item No. 18 of Standing Order No. 2, does not apply to proceedings connected with the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act.To sum up, we are not inclined, to accept the contentions of the appellant, that the issue of a notification, under S.4 of the Act, is a matter which should have been dealt with by the Minister-in-charge himself, on the basis that it is covered by Item 18 of Standing Order No. 2. That item does not as pointed out above, apply. If that is so, it is clear that the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act, and the satisfaction to be arrived at, that the land, in the area in question, is required or is likely to be required for a public purpose, are matters which do not require to be dealt with by the Minister himself. Under Standing Order No.5 the Minister-in charge has authorised the Secretary to permit a Deputy or an Assistant Secretary of the Department, to dispose of certain types of cases and the Secretary has also issued an order, which has been referred to earlier, in conformity with Standing Order No. 5 and it is by virtue of this provision that the notification, under S. 4, was issued by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal. We are in entire agreement with the reasons given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court for upholding the validity of the notification, dated February 4, 1955, issued, under S. 4 of the Act.Before we conclude, we should also make it clear that, in this case no contention was advanced that matters connected with the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act cannot be delegated by the Minister-in-charge and that they have to be dealt with by the Minister himself. We had, therefore no occasion to consider this aspect of the matter. As pointed out above the entire arguments have proceeded on the basis that there has been no such delegation, by the Minister, under the Standing Orders made by him.