NIRMAL CHAKRAVARTI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ALIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226, Constitution of India, for an appropriate writ for cancellation of an award made by the Land Acquisition Collector of 24 Parganas and of orders for refund of compensation money passed by him and the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, directing the Receiver to whom the compensation money had been paid to refund the same. The facts may shortly be stated as follows: -- One Rai Bahadur Dwarka Nath Chakravartty had created a trust in respect of his immovable properties for payment of debts and for distribution amongst the beneficiaries mentioned in the trust. By the said deed the settlor appointed himself and petitioner 1 and opposite parties 4 and 5 as trustees for carrying on the said trust. The settlor died on 6th July 1945, and petitioners 1 and 2 and opposite parties 4 and 5 are the present trustees in respect of the trust estate. Disputes and differences arose amongst the trustees and there was an application made to Court under Section 26, Arbitration Act which was registered as Title Suit No. 70 of 1947 and by an order; dated 12th July 1949, one Kalikananda Mukherjee, opposite party 2, was appointed receiver of the trust estate in that suit. It appears that thereafter some of the plots of lands belonging to the trust estate were acquired by the Government and the Land Acquisition Collector of 24 Parganas made an award on 15th March 1950, by which a sum of Rs. 9,112-8-0 was awarded as compensation in favour of Mr. Mukherjee, Receiver to the Dwarkanath Trust Estate, in respect of plot No. 135. By the same award, other sums were awarded to opposite party 3 Sitaram Kapur in respect of other plots of land. On 20th March 1950, compensation money was paid to the Receiver upon his giving an undertaking to refund the amount subsequently if called upon to do so. Thereafter opposite party 2 applied to the Land Acquisition Collector lor amendment of the award by representing himself to be a purchaser of the plot, being Dag No. 135, and the land Acquisition Collector has acceded to such application and amend the award and has called upon the Receiver to refund the sum to the Collector. On 17 August 1950, the Receiver was informed by a letter about the correction and refund of the money was actually asked for from him within a week from that date. On 20th March 1951, the Land Acquisition Collector, by another letter, again called upon the Receiver to refund the sum of Rs. 9,112-8-0 forthwith. On 9th April 1951, the Receiver applied in suit No. 70 of 1947 to the Subordinate Judge, Alipore for direction in respect of the "order of the Land Acquisition Collector to refund the money and it appears that the Subordinate Judge has given directions upon the Receiver for complying with the order of the Land Acquisition Collector with liberty to the receiver to come up for further directions if necessary. This order was made on 19th May 1951, after hearing the petitioners and other beneficiaries who opposed any such direction being given to the Receiver for refund of the money.

(2.) The special Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas, has filed a counter-affidavit in this case. In para 5 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the Land Acquisition Collector considered the application for amendment of the award in the presence of the parties and the Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. It is alleged that one Lalit Mohan Chakravartty, who was the Advocate appearing on behalf of the receiver, was present during the hearing on the different dates. It is pointed out by Dr. Sen Gupta that this Lalit Mohan Chakravartty is not an Advocate at all but he was a mere clerk. It is further stated in the said para 5 of the said affidavit that the order amending the award was made upon hearing the parties and upon withdrawal of objections by the parties concerned. The deponent further states that from a perusal of the Land Acquisition proceedings it is clear that the Receiver was represented by an Advocate and that the receiver had full knowledge of the proceedings.

(3.) Opposite party 3, Sitaram Kapur, has also filed a counter-affidavit. In para 4 of the said affidavit he sets out the various facts showing his chain of title and the extent of his interest in the land in question. It is further stated that prior to the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, the lands had been requisitioned by the Government for military purposes under the Defence of India Rules and possession had been taken, but subsequently notice of derequisition was served upon opposite party 3, but before possession was re-delivered, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the property were started.