SUDHANGSU KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award made by the Arbitrator on a reference made to him for determination of compensation for demolished building and structures on C. S. Plots Nos. 643 and 719 of Mauja Plata, P. S. Noappara, Dist. 24 Parganas. It appears that disputed properties were requisitioned by the State Government for public purpose, being purpose of Union of India under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. The said requisition was subject to the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Ordinance 1952, subsequently repealed and replaced by the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act XXX of 1952). The requisition was made on 23-1-1943 and possession was taken on the same day. Monthly rent of Rs. 75/- was being paid to the claimants up to 15-4-1957. On 25-5-1957, an amount of Rupees 25,460/- was offered by the Collector, 24 Parganas to the claimants as replacement costs of the demolished building. It appears that the building and structures on the land were demolished shortly after taking possession in 1943. As claimants were not satisfied with the aforesaid amount so offered to them and there was no agreement between the parties fixing the amount of compensation, an Arbitrator was appointed in accordance with the provision of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for determining the amount of compensation in respect of the said properties. Before the Arbitrator the claimants filed a Statement of Claim in which they claimed Rs. 29,267/- as compensation and damages for the demolished structures with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Subsequently, they filed another application for amendment of claim in which they raised their claim to Rs. 63,265/- in place of Rs. 29,267/- on the ground that the earlier amount claimed by them was on the valuation of the demolished structures at the rate prevailing in Jan. 1943 but that they were entitled to the compensation at the valuation rate prevailing in April 1957. Thereafter, both the parties proceeded before the Arbitrator on the question whether compensation was to be allowed at the rate prevailing in Jan. 1943 or April 1957. The Arbitrator was of the view that the valuation of 1943 would prevail and after taking into consideration the evidence on record he raised the total valuation of the building to Rupees 37,422/-. A depreciation of 30% was given on the said amount and an award was made for Rs. 26,195/-. Being dissatisfied with the award as made by the Arbitrator, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Amarendranath Gupta, learned advocate with Mr. Sumit Ghose appearing for the appellants contended before us that the learned Arbitrator fell into error in thinking that the compensation was to be awarded on the basis of valuation of the demolished structures as obtaining in Jan. 1943. According to Mr. Gupta, the valuation ought to have been made at the rate prevailing in 1957, i.e. the year in which the offer of compensation was made by the Collector to the appellants. In this connection he drew our attention to the provisions of Section 8 of Act (XXX of 1952) and to an unreported Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Meher Khan, decided on 12-6-1970, in A. F. O. D. No. 264 of 1959. He also referred to another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Upendra Kumar Nandy v. Union of India.

(3.) Mr. Nani Gopal Das, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellants were not entitled to claim anything more than what was allowed by the award inasmuch as in their petition for reference they stated that Rs. 29,267/- would be a fair compensation for the demolished building and structures. It was also pointed out by Mr. Das that in their Statement of Claim before the learned Arbitrator they also referred to the aforesaid sum as fair and equitable compensation for the demolished structures. Mr. Das also contended that the report and the evidence of expert Engineer J. Roy who was examined as witness No. 2 for the claimants should not be accepted inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator was justified in disregarding them.