UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHIB CHARAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the award and decree dated 15th of April, 1995 passed by the Arbitrator, North 24-Parganas and South 24- Parganas in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 1989(V). F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996 has been preferred by the Union of India whereas F. M. A. No. 173 of 2003 was preferred by the referring claimant Shib Charan Sarkar. The appeal preferred by referring claimant was earlier in point of time. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are taken up together. Submission by the respective Counsel:

(2.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the appellant in F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996, assailed the award and the decree on the ground that the valuation has not been assessed in accordance with law. The compensation awarded is on the higher side. It had relied on some documents, which are not reliable and the Arbitrator had proceeded to assess the compensation capriciously and arbitrarily. The Arbitrator has not taken into account the relevant materials, which were placed before it for arriving at the valuation. The valuation made is excessively high. Therefore, the award should be set aside.

(3.) Mr. De, learned Counsel for the appellant in F. M. A. No. 173 of 2003 opposing the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury as respondent in F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996 had pointed out that the Arbitrator had proceeded on the basis of exhibits 6 and 6(a) which are awards passed by the Arbitrator in respect of some lands in the same mouza out of the same acquisition proceedings in the same area and had rightly assessed the valuation. He relied on the decision in Hemanta Kumar Mallick & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, 79 CWN 378, by a Division Bench of this Court and Major Dhian Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 475, in order to contend that exhibits 6 and 6(a) are relevant materials reliable for the purpose of ascertaining valuation being awards in earlier cases as was held in the said two decisions. Therefore, the appeal being F. M. A. No. 69 of 1996 should be dismissed.