LAWS(CAL)-1975-12-45

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. NARENDRA NATH BANERJEE

Decided On December 19, 1975
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Appellant
V/S
NARENDRA NATH BANERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and it is directed against an award of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in a proceeding for compensation. The Respondent has also filed a cross-objection to the award. The appeal has been preferred under Sec. 77A(1)(b) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. In view of Sub-section (2) of that section, the scope of the appeal and that of the cross-objection is limited to errors of law or any defect in the procedure affecting the merits of the decision.

(2.) A portion of premises No. 38/1 Gariahat Road was acquired in connection with C.I.T. Scheme No. LXXII (Gariahat Road level crossing). The area of the land acquired is 4 cottahs, 7 chattaks.. The acquisition was made for the purpose of construction of a bridge after widening the road. The bridge has already been constructed in front of the acquired land. The total width of the road is 124' including the width of the bridge or the high level road, as it is called. The width of the road in front of the acquired premises is 32'. Previously the width of the road was 50'.

(3.) The Collector valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,500 per cottah. Being aggrieved by the award of the Collector, the Respondent, who was the referring claimant, made a reference to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the Respondent claimed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per cottah on the basis of the report and the evidence of his valuer. On behalf of the Appellant it was urged that the value of the acquired land would be much less than that and naturally it tried to justify the award made by the Collector. The Appellant also submitted a report by its valuer, who was also examined before the Tribunal. It was also claimed on behalf of the Respondent that by virtue of the acquisition of the portion of the said premises, the remaining portion was injuriously affected. On this ground, it was also claimed by him that he was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40,000. In this connection, it may be stated that the Respondent's valuer relied on the sale of 28/1B Gariahat Road as a comparable unit for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired land. On the other hand, the Appellant's valuer relied on the three transactions of sale--all in respect of premises No. 37/1 Gariahat Road for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. It was not disputed that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed as on April 11, 1957, that is, the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 43(2) of the Calcutta Improvement Act.