SUSHIL CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals at the instance of three different set of claimants, in a proceeding under the L. A. Act read with the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 arise out of the three awards, rendered by the Improvement Trust Tribunal, covered by the one and same judgment delivered by the President of the said Tribunal.

(2.) The President considered the valuation of the Collector and experts examined both sides. He repeated the evidence of the appellants' expert Chatterjee regarding valuation as being perfunctory, unhelpful and unworthy of acceptance, observing that upon the claimants burden lay to establish that the Collectors' valuation was wrong, the learned President held that the burden was not discharged by the claimants in the reference cases in question. After considering the materials in the record the President upheld Collector's award in respect of premises Nos. 33 and 34. Regarding Collector's award in respect of premises No. 35, the President made a slight modification and arrived at the modified valuation at Rs. 20,194-6-5 p. Material date for the purpose of valuation of the premises in Question according to the Tribunal was 25th May, 1950, the date of publication of notification under Section 43 (2) of Calcutta Improvement Act. 1911 in view of the provisions of Section 74-C (ii) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, as Introduced by amending the original Act, by the amending W. B. Act XXXII of 1955. The President held that the market value of land comprised within any improvement scheme framed by the Board and published under Section 49 of the Act shall be deemed to be the market value according to the disposition of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 43 (2) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The President held that the change in the law was a change in the procedural law and as such had no retrospective effect since none had a vested right in the law of procedure. Further the President held that the Collector's awards having been passed after the Amending Act had come into force, the Collector was correct in taking 25th May, 1950 as the date for determination of the market value and was justified in not taking 2nd September, 1954 as the date for determination of the market value. The President held that even if the material date was not May, 1950 but was September, 1954, there having had not been any increase of land value during the intervening period the market value in 1950 was the same as in 1954. Relying on the amended Section 74-C (i) of Calcutta Improvement Act 1911, which came into force on 20th October, 1955 the President disallowed 15% additional compensation as provided for by Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act and upheld the Collector's awards that also disallowed such additional compensation. The valuation in regard to premises Nos. 33 and 34 made by the Collector's award was upheld (page 98 of the paper book in F. A. No. 227 of 1957). Though the President observed that valuation of Collector regarding premises No. 35 required slight modification (page 98 of the paper book in F, A. No. 227 of 1957) he by his final order (page 102 of the paper book in F. A. No. 227 of 1957) dismissed the valuation case No. 35 with cost to the State. As regards valuation Cases Nos. 33 and 34, the final order of the President speaks not a word. We may take it that in Valuation Case Nos. 33 and 34 Collector's awards were upheld but nothing more.

(3.) The claimants in each of these Valuation Cases Nos. 33, 34 and 35 preferred those appeals against the Tribunal's judgment and awards respectively which have been heard analogously and shall be governed by this judgment.