ASOKE KUMAR BOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants of these two appeals are the heirs and successors in interest of Sm. Labanya Prova Dutta who was the owner of Plot Nos. 515, 517, 518, 519 and 521 of mouza Paschim Barisha, P.S. Behala. On November 23, 1954 a notification under Sec. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 was made for acquiring 2 33 acres of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 515, 517,519,.521 and a portion of Plot No 518 mouza Paschim Barisha described In the Schedule 'B' to the plaint of Money Suit No 22 of 1968 (corresponding to F.A. 220 of 1976). By the same notification 68 acres appertaining to Plot No. 518 was proposed to be acquired under the said Act. On December 30, 1954 necessary declaration under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act 1948 was made in respect of the said plot of lands. It has also transpired In evidence that on May 18,1953 the Collector of 24 Parganas had taken delivery of the said 2.33 acres of land and again on March 2, 1955 had taken possession of 66 acres of land appertaining to Plot No. 518. The purpose of acquisition of the aforesaid lands was "the settlement of immigrants who had migrated into West Bengal on account of circumstances beyond their control". On March 30, 1955 two articles of agreement were executed between Asoke Kumar Bose and Kamala Basu Chakraborty, the heirs of Sm. Labanya Prova Dutta on one hand and the Governor of the State of West Bengal on the other for payment of the said owners sums of Rs 40998/ and Rs. 16534/ - as advances on account of compensation on the agreed basis of Rs. 414/ - per cottah in respect of 2.33 acres and 66 acres respectively (vide Exts. 3 and 3A).

(2.) On November 15, 1968 the State of West Bengal Instituted Money Suit Nos. 21 and 22 of 1968 against the present appellants in the 7th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for recovery of 8315.19 P and Rs. 29753.83 P. respectively on the following allegations. The State of West Bengal averred that 2.33 acres and.66 acres of land described above had been acquired under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act and the Collector had taken possession of the same. According to the averments In the paragraph 3 of the plaint, the State Government had sanctioned allotment for payment of 80% of compensation at the agreed rate of Rs. 414/ - per cottah and upon representation of the defendants (appellants before us) two sums of Rs. 13227/ - and Rs. 40998/ - had been paid to them on taking Indemnity bonds and "on account basis." The State further pleaded that on March 2, 1967 awards had been made at the rate Of Rs, 112 -per cottah on the basis of the market value prevailing in 1946. On this basis the State claimed that the defendants in Money Suit No. 21 of 1968 had been paid Ra 8315 19 P. In excess of the award money. Similarly, the defendants In Money Suit No. 22 of 1968 had received Rs. 19,753 83 P. in excess of the sum awarded in their favour by the Collector. The State claimed that the awards being final and binding the defendants were not entitled to retain the said amounts which the State claimed had been paid to them in excess of the award "either illegally or by mistake of the officers of the plaintiff." The State alternatively pleaded that the defendants were bound to refund the said excess amounts on the basis of their indemnity. The State accordingly prayed for in the two suits recovery of the sum of Rs. 8315,19 P. and 29753 83 P.

(3.) The defendants contested the said two suits by filing written statements. They Inter alia pleaded that the State of West Bengal itself having estimated and settled the price of Rs. 414/ - per cottah which the defendants had accepted, the State was not entitled to resile from and/or repudiate the said contract. They also pleaded that the subsequent awards dated March 2, 1967 determining the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 112/ - per cottah was void, untenable, illegal and unwarranted. The defendant denied that they had been paid any excess amount. They also disputed their liability to refund the sums claimed by the plaintiff or any other amount.