STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. JOGENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional district judge, 5th Court, Burdwan allowing in part a Land Acquisition Reference Case and awarding in favour of the respondent compensation at the rate of Rs. 180000/-per acre for acquisition of his Plot No.1336 mouza Birhanpore, district Burdwan. The learned Additional District Judge also directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till payment.

(2.) The State of West Bengal had issued the relevant notification dated 14th June., 1961 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stating inter-alia that the said Plot No. 1336 measuring 53 decimals out of which 19 ? decimals was owned by the present respondent was likely to be needed for improvement of the railway station and for construction of staff quarters. On 11th November,1964 the declaration dated 13th June, 1964 for acquisition of the said plot was published. On 12th December, 1964 a Land Acquisition Collector made his award determining Rs. 13683.08 P. as compensation for the said acquired land of the appellant and also for trees, houses etc. The respondent made a petition under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act for referring the case to the learned District Judge for determination the question of valuation. The learned Additional District Judge as already stated has enhanced the compensation by assessing the price of the acquired plot at Rs.180000/- per acre.

(3.) Mr. Das, learned advocate for the appellant, had initially submitted that the referring claimant respondent did not deliver to the Collector any statement of claim under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, he was not entitled to pray for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector. But Mr. Roychowdhury, learned advocate for the respondent, has rightly drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the learned Additional district Judge that it was conceded before him by the learned Government Pleader that the statement had no claim petition had been filed in Form 16 was not correct and in fact the petitioner had filed the requisite claim petition. In the first place, it is settled principle that when a statement appears in the judgment of a court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily be permitted to be challenged by party unless both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement was wrong or the court itself admitted that he statement was erroneous. The remedy by a party aggrieved would be by way of review. In the instant case, the learned Additional District judge had recorded a concession made by the learned Government Pleader recording the factum of filing of a statement of claim by the referring claimant and not recording any point of law. Therefore in this appeal the State would be bound by the said concession on a question.