STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. PRADIP KUMAR AGASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent's land was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1942. At that point of time, 'sal' trees (timber) were standing on the land. Admittedly the land was utilized for the Military on which buildings were constructed and roads were developed. The land was utilized for the purpose of Panagarh Air Field. Subsequently, the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was enacted for the purpose of governing the cases requisitioned under the Defence of India Act as well as for fresh requisition. Admittedly, the respondents were getting the recurring compensation payable under section 8(2) of the 1952 Act. Ultimately, the land was sought to be acquired in 1975 under the 1952 Act. Pursuant to such acquisition, compensation became payable under section 8(3) of the 1952 Act.

(2.) Mr. Chandrasekhar Das, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the land comprising of jungle are 'Forest Land' which is supposed to be so declared under the Forest Act and Notification to that effect has since been issued including those lands within the Forest Area. Therefore, no compensation is payable to the claimant/respondent. Secondly, he contends that with the coming into force of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, all lands stood vested and no right was given to the raiyat to retain forest land. All forest land stood vested in the State. Therefore, the claimant cannot claim any compensation in respect of those lands.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, on the other hand, points out on behalf of the respondents that the land was no more a forest land since an air field was constructed on the land and in the air field, roads were developed, run-ways and permanent structures were constructed, therefore, it was no more a 'Forest Land'. That apart, no document has been produced to show that these lands were included within the notification as 'Forest Land'. Before the Arbitrator nothing was produced to show that the land had vested either under the Forest Act or under the Estates Acquisition Act as Forest Land. The records-of-right, which are made part of the Paper Book, does not appear to be the certified copies of the records-of-right, and it is not known whether the lands were so recorded in the records-of-right at the time when the acquisition was made. According to him, notice of acquisition was issued in the name of the claimant. These documents were forwarded only in June, 1996, three months after the decision of the Arbitrator. According to Mr. Chatterjee, these documents might have been prepared for the purpose of the case after the decision of the Arbitrator. Be that as it may, those documents cannot be looked into since they were not part of the records. Nor those can be looked into by this Court since these have not been made part of the records of the appeal. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Das has no legs to stand.