UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALIT KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A firm land measuring about 12 bighas 10 kattas and 4 chhataks with a garden house known as 'Aloka' thereon and a tank measuring about 1 bigha 15 kattas and 15 chhataks, comprised in C.S. plots No. 269, 270 and 276 to 282 of mouja Jungalpur belonged to Malina Debi, the predecessors-in-interest of the Referring Claimants. The said properties were requisitioned by the Government on 19.12.41 under the provision of rule 75A(1) of the Defence of India Rules. A recurring monthly compensation was assessed for the said properties at Rs. 700/- which was agreed to by the owner. Subsequently the said properties were acquired by the Government on 5.4.46 under the provision of rule 75A(2) of the said Rules. The collector assessed the compensation for the acquired properties by adopting two methods, namely, Rental Method and Land and Building Method. After taking the average of the two, he assessed the compensation for the acquired properties at Rs. 1,68,630/-. Malina Debi died in the meantime and her sons and legal heirs i.e. the Referring Claimants did not agree to such valuation. So, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Government under the provision of section 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939 and he was directed to make his award for acquisition of the aforesaid properties.

(2.) The Referring Claimants contended before the learned Arbitrator that valuation of land, tank, trees and structures on the acquired land as made by the collector was inadequate and that they were entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation. Both sides adduced evidence-oral and documentary. The learned Arbitrator in terms of proviso to section 19(1)(e) of the Defence of India Act appears to have considered what was the value of the acquired properties at the time of requisition. Considering the evidence as adduced before him, he calculated the valuation of land and tank at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per bigha and assessed the compensation on that score at Rs. 21,468.75P. He also assessed Rs. 3,126.75p as the fair amount of compensation for trees on acquired land and assessed Rs. 2,01,054.50p as fair amount of compensation for acquired constructures. In view of the decision in 66 CalWN 412, the learned Arbitrator also directed payment of interest at the rate of 3% per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of payment. Thus he made an award for a total sum of Rs. 2,29,512.50p on 31.8.62 in Arbitration Case No.196 of 1959.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Union of India has preferred the instant appeal challenging the propriety and correctness of the award as made by the learned Arbitrator. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has argued that the learned Arbitrator's valuation regarding land, trees and structures is highly excessive and that he should have assessed compensation on the basis of agreed rental of Rs. 700/- per month. He has also argued that the Referring Claimants have got no legal right to get interest on compensation as assessed by the learned Arbitrator under section 19 of the Defence of India Act which makes no provision for payment of any interest on the amount of compensation. In support of his view he has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Balai Lal Pal v. State of West Bengal reported in 70 CalWN 363. In this connection, he has also referred to the decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Nandalal Dey reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta 139 and to the decision in the case of Roufannessa Bibi v. Union of India reported in 66 CalWN 412.