Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 420 (CAL)

Shila Sarkar v. Supratik Chatterjee

2008-04-18

B.Bhattacharya, Rudrendra Nath Banerjee

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. THESE two first appeals arise out of two Reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and those are directed against the common judgement dated 11th October, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, purulia, in L. A. Reference Case Nos. 52 of 1987 and 53 of 1987, thereby dismissing those reference cases. 2. THE State of West Bengal, on 16th September, 1985 issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the Acquisition of 1. 57 acres of land in question in the village of Purulia being J. L. No. 292 (2), P. S. Purulia, being R. S. Plot Nos. 4485 and 4486 in full and part of R. S. Plot Nos. 4741 and 5097 of mouza Purulia for construction of a Post Office Building and the staff Quarters. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in favour of one Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, the recorded tenant of the land acquired. Jatindra Nath ghatak and others, the appellants of F. A. 386 of 1997, made reference under section 18 of the Act (L. A. Reference case of 53 of 1987) thereby alleging that they were tenants in respect of the portion of the land sought to be acquired and accordingly, they are entitled to get part of compensation which has been exclusively given to Mrityunjoy Chatterjee. According to the claimants, Mrityunjoy Chatterjee had no right of compensation over the part of the property over which they acquired title. 3. SIMILARLY, the L. A. Reference Case No. 52 of 1987 was started at the instance of one Shila Sarkar, the appellant of the other appeal before us, who claimed that she was also a co-tenant of a part of the land sought to be acquired and claimed compensation in respect of her interest and also at the higher valuation. 4. THE aforesaid two reference cases were opposed by Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, being represented by his heirs, thereby alleging that neither Jatindra Nath ghatak and others nor Shila Sarkar had any right, title and interest over any portion of the land which had been acquired by the notification in question. The heirs of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee themselves filed a reference praying for enhancement of the amount awarded in favour of their predecessor and as such, all the three cases were heard analogously by the Land Acquisition Judge. The heirs of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee themselves filed a reference praying for enhancement of the amount awarded in favour of their predecessor and as such, all the three cases were heard analogously by the Land Acquisition Judge. By the common judgement impugned herein, the Reference Court below has turned down the objections raised by Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others as well as Shila sarkar thereby dismissing their reference cases. 5. BEING dissatisfied, these two appeals have been preferred, one at the instance of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others and the other, by Shila Sarkar. Mr Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants in these two appeals, strenuously contended before us that the learned Reference Judge did not take into consideration the objections raised by his clients and simply proceeded on the basis of recording of the name of mrityunjoy Chatterjee in the Revisional Record of Rights. Mr Roychowdhury contends that the entry in the Record of Right does not create any title in respect of the property and at the most, the said entry is a piece of evidence showing possession of the person in whose name the same stands over the property in question. Mr Roychowdhury points out that the main reason for rejecting the reference made by his clients is that in the proceedings under Section 44 (1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, the concerned officer upheld the objection raised by Mrityunjoy Chatterjee and incorporated his name in place of the names of his clients which were there up to the stage of attestation. Mr Roychowdhury submits that just because his clients did not take any step against the recording of name of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee in the Revisional Record of Right, such fact cannot extinguish the title of his clients. Mr Roychowdhury points out that the name of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee was recorded for the first time in 1978 whereas the acquisition proceeding started in the year 1985, not even before the expiry of 12 years from the date of recording the name of Mrityunjoy chatterjee in the latest record of right. Mr Roychowdhury, therefore, contends that in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 his clients' title to the property has not extinguished on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Mr Roychowdhury, therefore, contends that in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 his clients' title to the property has not extinguished on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. ON merit, Mr Roychowdhury points out that Mrityunjoy Chatterjee purportedly acquired title to the property by taking a settlement from the zamindars in the year 1944 after the alleged surrender of tenancy right by the previous tenant whereas his clients purchased the property from the previous recorded tenant long before the institution of the suit by the Zamindars against the predecessor-in-interest of his clients. Mr Roychowdhury submits that his clients were not made parties to the suit of the year 1933 filed by the Zamindars and, therefore, were not bound by the decree passed against the predecessor of his clients because at the time of institution of the suit, the predecessor of his clients had already conveyed his interest in favour of his clients. Mr Roychowdhury, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Judge and declaring his clients as lawful tenants in respect of the portion of the property acquired by them. Mr Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr Roychowdhury and has pointed out that so far Shila Sarkar is concerned, she, according to her own case, acquired the property from one Nagendra Nath Ojha by a registered document of 1969 and the said document would show that she acquired the property situated on the Rainy Road being municipal holding no. H- 294/1 situated in Sector-III thereof situated on Rainy Road. Mr Banerjee points out that it appears from the notification of the acquisition itself that the property acquired was not situated on the Rainy Road but was really on Deshbandhu Road, which is in the Sector-II of the Municipality. In this connection, Mr Banerjee relies upon the information slip given by the concerned Municipality showing that deshbandhu Road was all along in Sector-II of the Municipality even in the year 1932 at the time of acquiring the property by Nagendra Nath Ojha, the predecessor-in-interest of Shila Sarkar. By relying upon such document, Mr banerjee contends that Shila Sarkar did not acquire any title to the property, which has been acquired by the notification. 7. By relying upon such document, Mr banerjee contends that Shila Sarkar did not acquire any title to the property, which has been acquired by the notification. 7. AS regards the reference case initiated by Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others, Mr Banerjee points out that those persons claimed title in respect of C. S. Khatian No. 205 of Mouza Purulia which consisted of plot nos. 903, 904 and 905 only whereas the acquired property is the lands situated in plot of R. S. Plot Nos. 4485, 4486, 4741 and 5097. According to the averment made in paragraph 9 of the application of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others, C. S. Plot Nos. 903, 904 and 905 correspond to R. S. Plot No. 4484. Mr Banerjee, therefore, contends that R. S. Plot No. 4484 being not the subject-matter of acquisition, Mr Roychowdhury's said clients cannot have any claim over the compensation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 8. AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that so far the case of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others is concerned, they claim their right in C. S. Khatian No. 205 of mouza purulia. The C. S. record of right shows that Ghatak and others' names were recorded in respect of the three plots being plot nos. 903, 904 and 905. As pointed out earlier, it has been admitted in paragraph 9 of the reference application that during R. S. operation, R. S. Plot No. 4484, corresponding to C. S. Plot Nos. 903, 904, 905, 906 and 907, and a portion of 908 measuring 1. 87 acres was recorded in the names of Ghatak and others up to the stage of attestation but the same was subsequently changed on the objection raised by Mrityunjoy chatterjee. It appears that R. S. Plot No. 4484 is not the subject-matter of acquisition and, therefore, Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others cannot claim any right at least over the acquired plots, which is not R. S. Plot No. 4484 but R. S. Plot nos. 4485, 4486, 4741 and 5097. It appears that R. S. Plot No. 4484 is not the subject-matter of acquisition and, therefore, Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others cannot claim any right at least over the acquired plots, which is not R. S. Plot No. 4484 but R. S. Plot nos. 4485, 4486, 4741 and 5097. Therefore, Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others had no right to claim compensation for acquiring any part of the property covered under the notification of acquisition and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below rejecting the reference was correct although we do not approve the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge in the award impugned. 9. SIMILARLY, the claim of Shila Sarkar is equally devoid of any substance. It appears from the purchase-deed of Shila Sarkar that she purchased municipal holding no. H-294/1 situated on Rainy Road in Sector-III of the Municipality. Information slip at page 106 of the paper book issued by the Municipality shows that Deshbandhu Road, which is the subject-matter of acquisition, is situated in sector-II of the Municipality from 1932 whereas Shila Sarkar purchased land in sector-III. Therefore, it is apparent that purchased property of Shila Sarkar on rainy Road has no connection with the acquired land at Sector-II of Deshbandhu road and, therefore, Shila Sarkar has no legitimate claim over the acquired land. 10. WE, therefore, find no merit in the claim alleged in these two appeals though we do not approve the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge. We dismiss the claim of the appellants on the grounds disclosed by us above. In view of the fact that even on the basis of the allegation made in the respective reference applications, the appellants failed to prove any right, title or interest over the acquired plots, we find no reason to enter into the submissions of Mr Roychowdhury for the purpose of ascertaining whether Mrityunjoy Chatterjee acquired valid title by way of his settlement from the Zaminders over the acquired lands when the State is not disputing the title of Mrityunjoy. We have already pointed out that the appellants at least have not acquired any title over the acquired properties by virtue of their settlements. The appeals, therefore, are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.