PROVINCE OF BENGAL Vs. RADHA GOBINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Province of Bengal and concerns the compensation to be paid in respect of certain lands acquired by the Province of Bengal. The property acquired consisted of a plot of danga (high) land recorded in C. S. Dag No. 1855 and certain arable lands recorded in C. S. Dags Nos. 1870, 1409, 1463, 1472/4500. The property acquired belonged to four brothers, Prangobinda Thakur, Radhagobinda Thakur, Gatigobinda Thakur and Satya Narayan Thakur. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 90 per bigha for the danga lands and Rs. 25 per bigha for the arable lands. Being dissatisfied by the award all the four claimants made a petn. for reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per bigha for the danga lands and Rs. 150 per bigha for the arable lands. This reference petn. also concerned a plot of land in which Prangobinda was alone interested. For reasons unexplained, one petn. of reference was made covering both the cases and no objection appears to have been raised to this procedure being adopted by the claimants. On 30 -6 -1939, the learned Land Acquisition Judge dismissed the reference. Against this order the claimants came up to this Ct. on the ground that a particular document, being a lease dated 31 -3 -1937, had not been accepted by the Ct. below as relevant evidence. The appeal in this Ct. was heard by Nasim Ali and Pal JJ. and by their judgment dated 25 -3 -1943 they directed that this documents should be considered along with other evidence in the case. After the matter went back, on 24 -1 -1944, Prangobinda, one of the referring claimants, made an appln. before the Land Acquisition Judge which runs as follows 'that the appct. Prangobinda begs to withdraw from the case. Your Honour will therefore be pleased to permit him to do so.' It would seem that this petn. referred to both the oases then pending before the Land Acquisition Judge. The petn. came up for consideration before the learned Dist. J., Burdwan, and by an Order No. 57, dated 26 -4 -1945, the learned Judge was of opinion that the reference in so far as it concerned Prangobinda alone was properly withdrawn and could not be proceeded with at the instance of other brothers. As regards the portion of the claim in which all the four brothers were interested the learned Judge was of opinion that the brothers have to claim the entire amount which may be awarded hereafter for the land after service of regular notice on Prangobinda; otherwise the reference at their instance is bound to fail. The learned Lawyer for the brothers accepted this position and notice of the reference case then pending before the learned Dist. J. was served on Prangobinda, who, however, did not appear. Against that part of the order which disallowed the contention of the brothers allowing them to carry on the claim in so far as it concerned the property in which Prangobinda alone was interested, the three brothers moved this Ct. in revision giving rise to Civ. Revn. case No. 1002 of 1945. The Province of Bengal did not contest the order of the learned Dist. J. in so far as it directed that the claim petn. in which all the brothers were interested should be proceeded with for the entire amount after notice to Prangobinda alone. The Civil Revision Case was disposed of by Mukherjea and Sharpe JJ. on 19 -2 -1946, the rule being discharged. After the matter went back to the learned Dist. J., the learned Dist. J. has accepted the reference and ordered compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per bigha for the danga lands, and Rs. 150 per bigha for the arable lands. It is the propriety of this order which is challenged in this appeal on behalf of the Province of Bengal.

(2.) LEARNED Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appearing for the applt. has raised two contentions. In the first place he contends that the assessment of value as made by the Land Acquisition Judge was excessive. We have been referred to the several documents on which reliance was placed by the Land Acquisition Judge. It appears therefrom that as regards the danga lands, 12 kattahs were sold for Rs. 300 in 1936. Taking into account the potential increase in the value it is not possible to say that the assessment of danga lands at Rs. 500 per bigha is excessive. The lands are situated close to the Steel Works and naturally there was great potentiality for conversion of these lands into building sites and consequent appreciation in the value.

(3.) A subsidiary point was also raised viz. that the learned Judge has mainly relied on the lease Ex. 1 and has thus gone against the order of remand made by Nasim Ali and Pal JJ. As I have already stated, the learned Judge did not base his decision merely on lease Ex. I, but referred to various documents which are expressly referred to in the judgment. The subsidiary contention is obviously unsound and must be overruled. The position, therefore, is that the appraisement of value of the land by the Land Acquisition Judge must be maintained. The first contention raised on behalf of the applt. accordingly fails.