Case: Netai Bag  Vs. State Of W.B.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that by notification dated 22nd August, 1961 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of West Bengal acquired land measuring 151.18 acres for a public purpose, namely, construction of Mourigram-Dankuni Link Project of South-Eastern Railways. After completion of the project, the Railways surrendered the surplus land measuring 77.36 acres to the State Government on 7.7.1972. On 12.5.1973, the State Government handed over the possession of 74.21 acres of the surplus land to Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, now Animal Resource Development Department. The West Bengal Livestock Processing Development Corporation was authorised to set up the Mourigram Abattoir Project on this land. In furtherance of the establishment of abattoir, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between India and Australia by which the Australian Development Assistance Bureau agreed to provide assistance for the establishment of an abattoir, in the year 1977. The consultants of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau prepared a detailed three-volume Feasibility Report stating therein that the Mourigram Project was feasible. By that time the State Government had established another abattoir project at Durgapur which, after commissioning, was running into losses. The appellants apprehended that the State Government, in collusion with some outsiders, was negotiating to sell out and to transfer the land in fiduciary manner exclusively for a profit purpose allegedly to defraud and mislead the people of the State. The private party referred to was Al-Kabeer, a Dubai based concern for the purposes of establishing a slaughter house/abattoir. Some correspondence ensued between the appellants and the respondents 1 to 4. It was contended that the respondents were encroaching upon the Constitutional Rights of the appellants by establishing a slaughter house/abattoir on the land acquired for a specified public purpose. It was submitted that after the completion of the project, the excess land should have been transferred to the land owners or sold in public auction but could not be utilised for any private purpose particularly for the establishment of a slaughter house/abattoir. The petitioners alleged that the establishment of the slaughter house/abattoir was not in conformity with List III Entry 17 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The action was further alleged to be contrary to List III Entry 17(B) and violative of the mandate of Articles 31(2), 48, 48A, 49 and 51 of the Constitution. The delay in filing Writ Petition was sought to be explained on the ground that respondents had allegedly kept the deal a guarded secret.4. The disputed land comprises of an area measuring 46.42 acres, being part of the unutilised surplus land. It appears that realising its inability to profitably run the abattoir at Durgapur, the State Government was in search of some private party to take over the said abattoir along with the proposed project of establishing abattoir at Mourigram. Newspaper advertisements appears to have been issued by the West Livestock Processing Development Corporation in 1986, inviting private parties to take over the Durgapur Abattoir which is shown to be running in losses and for which the Comptroller and Auditor General had severely criticised the aforesaid Corporation vide its Report submitted in 1993. Respondent No. 5 is stated to have been invited by the State Government vide letter dated 19th October, 1993 for taking over Durgapur Abattoir. In reply Enagro Foods (India) Limited, a sister concern of respondent No. 5 intimated that "we are willing to take over the existing facilities at Durgapur on `as is where is basis at reasonable terms for subsequent development into an export oriented integrated complex". On 22nd December, 1993 they informed the Minister concerned that to effectively utilise the States agro based materials being livestock, fruits and vegetables, fresh water and sea fish in addition to milk based product, the concern proposed to create integrated food processing and preservation facilities. For that purpose, they promised that factory would be complete in accordance with the highest international standards and specifications for conversion and production of food products. They declared that the pulp of mango fruits besides mango slices and other fruits and vegetables from Bardhaman, Malda and Murshidabad Districts would be received at their proposed preliminary and processing centres to be set up in the Districts to ensure direct linkage with the farmers and for maintaining steady supply to their processing unit. Upon the suggestion of the Secretary, Department of Animal Resource Development, the representatives of Enagro Foods inspected the vacant plot of land at Mourigram and found the same to be suitable for their proposed venture. They desired that the entire site be leased out to them on a long term basis as per the standard terms of the concerned Department of the West Bengal Government at reasonable terms. On 14th January, 1994, the said concern was offered the land at Mourigram and Durgapur upon the following termslong-term lease for 99 years on realisation of 100% market value only.2. Approximate market value at Mourigram has been assessed at Rs. 1,92,800/- per acre for Danga/Bastu/Bagan land, Rs. 1,54,240/- per acre for `Sali, Rs. 77,120/- per acre for `Doba, Rs. 1000/- per acre for `Khal. Ã¯7Â?3  Å3. The market value in respect of Durgapur land will be communicated to you shortly.4. If you do not use the land within a reasonable time for the purpose for which it is given, Govt. will reserve the right suo moto to determine the lease.The offer was accepted by the company on 18th January, 1994 with intimation that the leased property shall be utilised for development of integrated multipurpose product food processing plants. The market value of the Durgapur land, building, plant and machinery was communicated to respondent No. 5 on 1.2.1994 which was accepted the same day. On 25th February, 1994, the State Government granted approval to respondent No. 5 for setting up of Mourigram and Durgapur Projects. On 2nd March, 1994, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Howrah was requested to furnish a report as to whether the entire 46.42 acres of land was fit for settlement for the proposed project and also to furnish the details of the land which would be fit for settlement by mentioning specifically the exact extent for each class and area involved. A decision was taken on 18.4.1994 for transferring the land to the respondent No. 5 on long term basis, initially for a period of 99 years on payment of Rs. 71,59,820.80. On 13th June, 1994, respondent No. 5 was informed that possession of the land would be handed over after payment of the lease premium. Respondent No. 5 is stated to have made the payment of Rs. 87,27,000/- for the purchase of building, plant and machinery of Durgapur Slaughter House and on 13th July, 1994 and sum of Rs. 71,59,820/- as lease premium for Mourigram Abattoir. The lease deed was executed between the parties on 9th June, 1995 on terms and conditions which were incorporated in Part II of the Schedule attached to the said lease deed.6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are stated to have filed the writ petition on 13.4.1998 without impleading respondent No. 5 as party thereto. Respondent No. 5 is shown to have been impleaded as party in the writ petition on 17th August, 1998. The writ petition was dismissed on 25th September, 1998 and appeal filed against it met the same fate on 10.5.1999, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
25. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are not persuaded to hold that the action of the respondent-State in executing the lease deed with respondent No. 5 was unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary or actuated by extraneous considerations. In this regard it is worth noticing that none except the erstwhile owners and the propounders of vegetarianism have made any grievance to the effect that the market value of the property, as charged from respondent No. 5, was either allegedly for a song or at a throw away price.26. The inaction of the appellants in approaching the Court, almost after three years of the impugned lease deed is an additional circumstance to doubt their bona fides in challenging the impugned action. During the pendency of the litigation between the parties, a huge project has actually, by now, come into existence where the production has also commenced. Respondent No. 5 is claimed to have spent a sum of Rs. 73.01 crores as of 30.10.1999 on the project. Interference at this stage will not only adversely affected the business of respondent No. 5 but would also render a large number of people unemployed and deprive the State its cherished desire of developing the industrial growth.