SATISH CHANDRA DE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115, C. P. C., at the instance of certain claimants directed against an order of Mr, N. K. Ghose who was appointed an Arbitrator under orders of Government dated 31-7-50, The subject matter of dispute is portion of 3 C.S. plots which had been requisitioned by Government under Rule 75A, . Defence of India Rules, on 2-11-43. It appears that subsequently these lands were acquired by Government. In the order of Government dated 31-7-50 mentioned above it was mentioned 'inter alia' that the said properties were requisitioned under Section 8, Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946, (Ordinance 19 of 1946) and under Section 3, Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, and have been acquired. It appears further that there was also a Notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 17-7-47 stating inter alia that the disputed lands had in supersession of previous orders been acquired under Section 5 (1) Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. It appears that before the Arbitrator the present petitioners claimed compensation on the basis of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, i.e. under Sub-section (2) of s. 6 of that Act. It was argued, however, before the Arbitrator on behalf of the Government that the acquisition of the lands was really on 24-9-46 under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules. This contention on behalf of the Government found favour with the Arbitrator and he awarded compensation on the footing that the acquisition was really on 24-9-46 under the Defence of India Rules and not on 17-7-47 under Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. The Arbitrator has accordingly held that the petitioners before us are entitled to compensation on the basis of Section 19(1)(e), Defence of India Act, 1939, and he has assessed compensation in respect of the disputed lands at Rs. 4060/3/6.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended before us that the Arbitrator was wrong in holding that the acquisition of the disputed land was under the Defence of India Rules and not under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, It has, therefore, been argued that the fundamental basis of the decision of the Arbitrator in regard to the assessment of compensation is erroneous.

(3.) On behalf of the State it has been argued before us, as it was argued before the Arbitrator, that the acquisition was really under the Defence of India Rules and not under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947, and that the decision of the Arbitrator on the point is quite correct and that the Arbitrator was right in holding that the Collector must have acquired the land again under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act 1947 under some misconception.