JITENDRA NATH CHALKI Vs. BMAL KRISHNA KUNDU CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1968 thereby allowing the L. A. Misc. Case No. 19 of 1968 filed by respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree passed by the learned L.A. Judge the O.P. No. 1 as appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) The reference case arose out of an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called L.A. Act), 1894 filed by the plaintiff respondent alleging that the petitioners and their co-sharers are entitled to receive compensation in respect of plot No. 2052 of Mouza Duillya known as Duilya Garden South Paddy Land within P.S. Sankrail, and for declaration that compensation has been wrongly awarded in favour of the defendant appellant. It was also alleged in the said reference petition that defendant appellant Jiten Chalki had never any right, title and interest in the said plot No. 2052. In the petition of reference, the valuation made by the L.A. Collector was challenged and the petitioners laid claim to other plots covered by the award but at the time of hearing of the reference petition the petitioners abandoned their claim in respect of other plots except plot No. 2052 and their claim for higher valuation. Accordingly, before the learned L.A. Judge the only question that fell for consideration was whether the award made by the L.A. Collector in the name of Jiten Chalki in respect of plot No. 2052 was proper or not.

(3.) The contesting O.P. Jiten Chalki in his written objection took the plea that he took settlement of Gula tenancy in respect of suit plot No. 2052 along with other plots at a produce rent of 91/2 maunds of paddy and that his name was duly recorded in the finally published record-of-rights in a proceeding under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter called WBEA Act). The further defence case is that the Appellate Tribunal upheld the judgment of the Revenue Officer and directed that name of Jiten Chalki should be recorded as a tenant under the reference petitioners Kundu Chowdhuries. Against the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Kundu Chowdhuries moved the High Court in revision, but the High Court affirmed the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it was the contention of the defendant appellant that he was the recorded tenant in respect of suit plot No. 2052 and the award made in his name and in the name of his transferee by the L.A. Collector was legal and proper.