NANDA RANI DEBI Vs. APCAR COLLIERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a proceeding for apportionment of compensation in a land acquisition case. The acquisition in question was made for the construction of staff quarters of the Coat Mines Stowing Board, Asansol. The appellant before us claimed to be a permanent mokarari tenant under the respondent company in respect of the acquired land, measuring 7.04 acres in Mouza santa, P. S. Asansoi, District Burdwan. Her claim was accepted by the Collector, who, by his award, dated April 1, 1949, gave her the whole of the compensation money less only a sum of Rs. 2/10/6p. which was given to the respondent company, the amount awarded to the appellant being Rs. 35,215/12/0 out of the total compensation of Rs. 35,218/6/6p., awarded by the Collector, so far as these parties are concerned. The award, so far as the valuation goes, was not objected to by either party, but the respondent company, feeling aggrieved by the above apportionment, applied, on May 5, 1949, for an apposite reference. In the said reference petition, the company contended that the appellant was not a permanent mokarari tenant, as claimed by her, in respect of the disputed property and that, even if she had that status or character, under the terms of the relevant kabuliyat (Ext. 1), on which her said claim rested, she was not entitled to any part of the compensation money. The reference was duly made on May 25, 1950, and it was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 282 of 1950 before the learned District Judge, Burdwan. Eventually, this reference was accepted and allowed by the learned District Judge and the collector's award was modified and, by his judgment and award dated June 14, 1956, the learned District (Land Acquisition) Judge gave the whole of the compensation money (Rs. 35,218/6/6) to the respondent company. Thereupon, this appeal was preferred by the appellant to this Court on July 6, 1956. At an earlier stage, the appeal came up before a Bench of this Court, presided over by myself, and it was remanded for allowing the respondent company to press specifically its objection to the appellant's status and for allowing the parties opportunity to adduce further evidence on the two points involved, namely, (1) the question of the appellant's status, that is, as to whether she had permanent mokarari right in the disputed property and (2) whether even If she hart such permanent mokarari tenancy she had, by the relevant kabuliyat (Ext. 1) abandoned her claim to all compensation money on acquisition. This evidence was taken by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and the records were ultimately returned to this Court for further hearing of the appeal, which was kept by this Court on its file, while making the above order of remand presumably under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The above further evidence along with the earner evidence on record will now be the evidence in the case and, in the light of the same, the two questions, which have arisen between the parties, as aforesaid, will have to be determined.

(3.) As to the term in the kabuliyat (Ext. 1), upon which the learned District (Land Acquisition) Judge relied,--and solely relied--in making the entire award in favour of the respondent company in the instant case, in his award, which is now under challenge in this appeal, we have little hesitation in holding that the reliance, placed upon it by the said learned Judge, cannot be supported. The term in question, in the context, in which it appears, and on its own wordings, cannot be construed against the appellant as constituting an abandonment of her claim to any part of the compensation money on acquisition of the disputed property. The words of the agreement are some what significant and it is necessary to quote them in their original, that is, in Bengali, in this connection. These words are: ^^cankscLrh tkxk; dksu va'k xouZesaV dfZrZ`d x`fgr g; rkgk gkbZy dkisU'kslus Vkdk vkbZu er vkiukjk ikbZcsu** which may be translated as follows: "If any portion of the land settled be acquired by the Government, you will be entitled to get compensation money according to law." The significant word in this connection is ^^vkbZu er** which means 'according to law'. If emphasis is laid on this word, the position is that the appellant agreed that, on such acquisition, as aforesaid, compensation will be payable to the landlord company in accordance with law. This must mean, in the context, in which it appears, that the compensation will be payable to the parties in accordance with law.