BHARAT PETROLEUM Vs. MD. SAYEEDUL ISLAM MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant six appeals the judgement and decree dtd. 28/8/2002 as passed by Learned LA Tribunal, Howrah in LA Misc. Case no.28/2001 (Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dtd. 24/6/2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.34/2001 (Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dtd. 23/8/2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no. 27/2001 (Gopi Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dtd. 22/8/2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.26/2001 (Sk. Masihur Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decreed dtd. 29/8/2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.32/2001(Gopi Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dtd. 28/8/2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.33/2001 (Nasira Khatoon vs. State of West Bengal) as passed by learned Judge, LA Tribunal, Howrah have been assailed at the instance of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Oil Company') who is the requiring body of the said land acquisition cases for establishment of their bottling plant on the lands acquired.

(2.) Though in the aforementioned Misc. Cases as filed under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 the petitioners are different and though separate judgements have been passed in all the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases but as per request made at the Bar, all the present appeals have been taken up for hearing analogously since common question of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned six impugned judgements as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

(3.) Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellants in support of the instant appeals at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the Exhibits nos.1 and 2 of the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases . It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty that in all the aforementioned Misc. Cases, the Land Acquisition Tribunal wrongly placed its reliance upon the said Exhibits nos. 1 and 2 and thus increased the value of the acquired lands in reference cases under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act of 1948'). It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty that on account of unreasonable increase of the value of the lands, the exchequer of the present appellant being the Oil Company has been unnecessarily burdened and the same is required to be diminished by allowing the instant appeal. Drawing attention to Sec. 8 of the LA Act of 1948 it has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty that learned LA Tribunal while passing the judgements of the aforementioned six nos. of LA Misc. Cases did not at all consider Sec. 8(2) of the LA Act of 1948 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that Sec. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 shall, so far as they may be applicable, apply in respect of a reference made to the Court under Sec. 8(1) of the LA Act of 1948. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant that since the present appellant was served with no notice either from the Land Acquisition Collector in course of fixation of compensation of the acquired lands for the appellant or from the LA Tribunal while disposing the aforementioned Misc. Cases under Sec. 8 of the LA Act of 1948, the present appeals may be allowed by remanding all the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases to the learned LA Tribunal for hearing afresh after giving an opportunity to the present appellant being the requiring body to file its objections in the said Misc. Cases under Sec. 8 of the LA Act of 1948.