Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 267 (CAL)

Anandamoyee Bhattacharjee v. State

2001-05-09

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

body2001
JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an application for revision of the order No. 73 dated June 4, 1997 passed by Sri Milan Chatterjee, learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in L. A. Misc. Case No. 320 of 1986 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge directed that the proceedings be dropped and the Collector be directed to take back all the documents which have been referred to the Court including the cheque and to take steps in accordance with law. Petitioner is admittedly the owner of certain lands at Mouza Krishnapur under the Police Station Sutahta, District-Midnapore and those properties were acquired by the State of West Bengal. The Collector passed an Award and the applicant objected to the said Award and requested the Collector to make a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, as are relevant for the present purpose, are as under:. "Section 18 : Reference to Court: (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter may be referred by the Collector for determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the lands, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amount the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the Award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; . . (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the Award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; . . (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." "Section 19.Collector's statement to the Court:- (1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the court, in writing under his hand,- (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon; (b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; (c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under sections 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under section 11; (cc) the amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3A) of section 17; and (d) if the objection be to the amount of the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. (2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by, the parties interested respectively." 2. It appears from the said provisions that under section 19 (l)(d) of the said Act it was the duty of the Collector to indicate the grounds on which amount of compensation was determined. It appears from the -order impugned that those grounds were not stated in the papers forwarded by the Collector to the learned Judge, Land Acquisition Court. After receipt of the papers from the office of the Collector the matter was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 326 of 1986 and some witnesses were examined. - At that stage, the learned Additional District Judge directed that proceedings be dropped as reference was made not following the mandatory terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Case No. 326 of 1986 and some witnesses were examined. - At that stage, the learned Additional District Judge directed that proceedings be dropped as reference was made not following the mandatory terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fink vs. Secretary of State for India, reported in I.L.R. 34 599, observed as hereunder: "But before entering into a consideration of the evidence on these points, we think it desirable to say something on the question of the burden of proof discussed before us. In Appeal from Original Decree No. 264 of 1905, in which we delivered judgment on the 12th April, we have held that though the claimant must, on a reference under section 18 of the Act, being, and thus start a case showing that the Collector's award should not be accepted the onus of proof varies according to the probative value of the enquiry made by the Collector under section 11 of the Act. Section 14 gives the collector powers to summon witness, and to compel the production of documents, and to make an enquiry in the same way as a civil court would do in such a case. He is, also, bound, when a reference is made to the Judge, to state the ground on which his award of compensation was based. If, however, he makes no enquiry or gives no grounds for his valuation, the burden of proof on the claimant is nominal. The Special Judge must decide according to the weight of evidence, irrespective of the question of onus probandi and without throwing on the claimant an undue share of it. In these appeals the Collector gave very little assistance you the learned Judge in the court below when he submitted his statements under section 19. The learned Judge ought to have decided the cases, and we must decide these appeals, having regard to the weight of the evidence of the market value and rentals on the record, irrespective of the question of burden of proof." 4. From the observations made by the Division Bench, it appears that if the Collector gives no ground for his valuation, the burden of proof of the claimant is nominal. But, for the failure on the part of the Collector to give reasons, proceedings cannot be dropped. From the observations made by the Division Bench, it appears that if the Collector gives no ground for his valuation, the burden of proof of the claimant is nominal. But, for the failure on the part of the Collector to give reasons, proceedings cannot be dropped. The learned Judge in the court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The order impugned is accordingly set aside and the revisional application is allowed. The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs. If applied for, let xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously. Revisional application allowed.