Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 70 (CAL)

Niva Nani Chandra v. The State of West Bengal

2008-01-18

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE

body2008
Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal is at the instance of the referring claimants and is directed against the award dated September 16, 1989 passed by the Arbitrator, Calcutta, North 24-Parganas and South 24-Parganas in Arbitration Case No.41 of 1988(V). On account of acquisition of 3.28 acres of danga land of C.S. Plot Nos. 4806, 4807, 4794 and 4793 of mouza Bongaon, P.S. Bongaon, Dist. 24-Parganas (North), the Collector offered compensation to the owners of the lands at the rate of Rs.58,365/- per acre. Being dissatisfied, the owners filed a petition under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 for reference to the Arbitrator for proper determination of the amount of compensation for the acquired property and the said reference gave rise to Arbitration Case No.41 of 1988. Before the learned Arbitrator, neither of the parties adduced any oral evidence but certified copies of two sale-deeds being Ext.-1, Ext.-1A, along with Ext.-2, being the C.S. map of the area were relied upon by the appellants. The State of West Bengal, on the other hand, relied upon three different certified copies of the sale-deeds being Ext.-A, Ext.-A1 and Ext.-A2, in support of their claim for maintaining the amount of compensation offered by the collector. By the award impugned herein, the learned Arbitrator has enhanced the valuation of compensation to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied, the referring claimants have come up with the present first appeal. None appears on behalf of the State of West Bengal in spite of service of notice of this appeal. Mr. Ghosh, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, strenuously contended before us that the learned Arbitrator erred in law in taking into consideration Ext.-A and Ext.-A2 and in calculating the average price per acre after taking into account those two documents along with the Ext.-1 wherein the price of land was shown to be Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. According to Mr Ghosh, Ext.-A, which discloses the price of the land covered by the deed to be Rs.30,000/- per acre or Ext.-A2, which describes the price of the land involved therein at the rate of Rs.50,000/-per acre were irrelevant because the lands covered under Ext.-A and Ext.-A2 were not road-facing whereas the lands acquired are all road-facing. He, therefore, prays for modification of the award by accepting the value mentioned in Ext.-1 alone. He, therefore, prays for modification of the award by accepting the value mentioned in Ext.-1 alone. After going through the materials on record, we find that the lands covered under Ext.-1 are bastu lands whereas the lands acquired by the State are all danga. Moreover, by Ext.-1 a small amount of land was transferred. In this connection, it will be relevant to point out the provision contained in Section 6(2) of the West Bengal Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1951 which are quoted below: “In respect of the acquisition under this Act or the Ordinance of any requisitioned land, the amount of compensation payable shall be such sum as would be sufficient to purchase at the market rate prevailing on the date of the notice under Section 5 a piece of land equal in area to, and situated, within a distance of three miles from, the acquired land, and suitable for the same use as that to which the acquired land was being put immediately before the date of its requisition or a sum equivalent to twice the market value of the acquired land on the date of its requisition, whichever, is less, and such amount shall be determined and paid in accordance with the procedure set out in the aforesaid Section 19 and the Rules made thereunder”. After taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, we find that although the lands covered under Ext.-1 are within a distance of three miles from the acquired lands, yet, those lands are not suitable for the same use as that of the acquired lands, inasmuch as, the acquired lands are all danga lands whereas lands covered under Ext.-1 are bastu. As the State of West Bengal has not challenged the award, we cannot modify the award by lessening the amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator but at any rate, there is no scope of enhancement of the awarded amount as from the materials placed before the Arbitrator, there is no just ground for enhancing the valuation. Although, Mr. Ghosh tried to further convince us that the requisitioned amount of land being 3.53 acres whereas amount of lands acquired is 3.28 acres, there should be specific direction for derequisitioning the balance amount, we are not at all impressed by such submission. Although, Mr. Ghosh tried to further convince us that the requisitioned amount of land being 3.53 acres whereas amount of lands acquired is 3.28 acres, there should be specific direction for derequisitioning the balance amount, we are not at all impressed by such submission. The learned Arbitrator has rightly pointed out that no material was placed before him indicating that the amount of land requisitioned was really 3.53 acres. Mr. Ghosh lastly contended before us that the learned Arbitrator should have considered Ext.-1(b) by which even doba land was sold at a rate higher than that at which the bastu lands covered by Ext.-1 was sold. We find that the learned Arbitrator did not consider the Ext.-1(b) as the plots involved therein did not find place in Ext.-2, the C.S. Map. We have already pointed out that no oral evidence was given and thus, unless the actual location of the lands covered by Ext.-1(a) is found and it is established that the same is within three miles from the acquired lands, the valuation of such land is insignificant for the purpose of calculation as provided in the relevant statutes quoted by us above. It appears from the order dated 6th March, 1992 that a Division Bench of this Court directed the State to deposit the entire awarded amount with the learned Registrar General of this Court and permitted the appellant to withdraw half of the same. Since no cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the State respondent and at the same time no counter-appeal has been filed by the State respondent, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount. The learned Registrar General is directed to pass appropriate order immediately. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.