JOGENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the referring claimant and they arise out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands acquired were C. S. Plots Nos. 1402 and 1422 forming the subject-matter of F.A. 346/66, and C.S. Plot No. 1509, which is the subject-matter of F.A. 347/66, situate in mouja Gopinathpur in the district of Burdwan. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre with respect to plot No. 1402 as began land, for plot No. 1422 at Rs. 60/- per acre as Road, and Rs. 710/- per acre for plot No. 1509 as danga land. The claimant was dissatisfied with the Collector's award and took a reference before the Land Acquisition Judge. In the petition of reference the claim appears to have been made for Rs. 12,000/- with respect to the began land and Rs. 24,000/- for the danga land, on account of the potential value of the lands. The learned Land Acquisition Judge affirmed the Collector's award and rejected the claim. The claimant being aggrieved preferred these two appeals, F. A. 346 of 1962 in his capacity as a Shebait to the deity and F. A. 347 of 1962 in his personal capacity.

(2.) It appears that the aforesaid lands were acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued on 3rd June, 1958. Prior to the said notification, another notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on the 12th Jamiary, 1955 with respect to the lands in the district of Burdwan but (he exact location of the lands had not been specified in the said notification. In determining the amount of compensation the learned Land Acquisition Judge took into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the first notification dated 12-1-55.

(3.) Mr. Mitter, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the learned Judge was basically wrong in determining the compensation on the basis of the first notification dated 12-1-55. According to Mr. Mitter, notification issued by the Government on January 12, 1955, set out the general route for survey of the lands likely to be needed for the public purpose, but it did not specify the locality in which the land was needed. In pursuance to the said notification, no objection could possibly be submitted nor any inquiry could be made by the Collector under Section 5A of the Act because particulars of the land or locality were not mentioned in the said notification. Mr. Milter, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the relevant date for ascertaining the market value of the land was the date of the first notification issued on 12-1-55. Mr. Mitter further contended that the relevant notification for determination of compensation under Section 23 of the Act was the notification dated 3rd of June, 1958, in which particulars of the acquired plots had been specified. In support of his contentions Mr. Mitter referred to an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in a case between the same parties (Civil Appeal No. 654 of 1966, Bhutnath Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal) decided on 14-3-1969 --(since reported in AIR 1969 NSC 73), wherein a notification dated 12-1-55 under Section 4 (1) of the Act was construed. Another decision of the Supreme Court--Narendrajit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, was also relied on by Mr. Mitter.