KALIPADA BAGCHI Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 10.6.1981 passed in settlement Appeal No. 3 of 1980 by the learned District Judge. Murshidabad arising out of decree/order of District Compensation Officer, 'A' Camp, Murshidabad in Objection Case No. 448 of 1978 under Estates Acquisition Act.

(2.) The subject matter and/or the background of the case is inter alia as follows : The appellants are the executors of the Will of the ex-intermediary Mr. Nolinikanta Adhikari of Balurghat, District-West Dinajpur. The Will was duly probated on 6.3.1979 in Probate Case No. 41 of 1974 of the District Judge, West Dinajpur, Balurghat. The said ex-intermediary Mr. Nolinikanta Adhikari had certain Estates comprising tenanted and kahs land both in West Dinajpur and Murshidabad Districts. After promulgation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the said estate vested in the State subject to the write off estates of the said intermediary. Compensation Assessment Rolls were prepared by the respective Compensation Officers of West Dinajpur and Murshidabad under provisions of Section 14 of the Estates Acquisition Act and draft Compensation Assessment Rolls were duly published on 3.10.1978 by the respective Compensation Officers of West Dinajpur and Murshidabad. The appellants being aggrieved, filed objection before the Compensation Officer, 'A1 Camp Murshidabad, under Section 15(4)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.

(3.) The appellants alleged that the said draft Compensation Assessment Roll did not include all the vested lands and the rent receiving interest of the ex-intermediary and that compensation was also assessed in respect of 8.24 acres of beel lands in Plot Nos. 3341, 1132 and 1896 under Khatian Nos. 1585 of Mouza Khairmari which were, according to the appellants tank fisheries and could not vest in the State. It was further alleged by the appellants that Rule 15(a) of Rules framed under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was not complied with or valid in computation of the annual income of the khas land and that the Compensation Officer did not take into consideration the returns of agricultural income tax submitted by the ex- intermediary prior to the date of vesting at the time of computation of the annual income of the khas land vested in the state. It was further pleaded that the Compensation Officer did not allow interest on the amount of compensation payable to the ex-intermediary. Lastly, it was alleged that the amount of compensation was fixed not on the basis of the rules and provisions of law but on the basis of some executive directives and instructions overriding the provisions of law which was not permissible.