STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SRI PRANAB CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against an order dated 27th Aug., 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the compensation payable for acquisition of the property of the writ petitioners under Act II of 1948. The learned Single Judge, on interpretation of Sec. 28A of Act I of 1894 read with Sec. 8 of Act II of 1948 which has since been repealed, held that on a beneficial interpretation of Sec. 28A of the Act I of 1894 the writ petitioners are entitled to enhance compensation.

(2.) It is not a dispute that the land of the petitioners in question was acquired prior to 1996. The Collector made and published an award on 5th June, 1996. The petitioners did not contemporaneously raise any dispute under Sec. 8 of the said Act and received the compensation, awarded by the Collector. Act II of 1948 was temporary in nature and died its natural death on 31st March, 1997. The provisions of the said Act was never extended thereafter. The land of the petitioners was part of Mouza Routa. The appellant has acquired the entire track of Mouza Routa. One of the persons aggrieved by the award of the collector made a reference under Sec. 8 of Act II of 1948. Since the said provision is saved by Sections 9(3-A) and 9(3-B) of Act I of 1894, the District Judge as an Appellate Authority heard the matter and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector which has given rise to the present proceeding.

(3.) The question arose before the learned Single Judge was whether by reason of enhancement of the compensation in favour of Md. Saydul Islam similar benefit could be extended to the writ petitioners as "persons aggrieved" or "persons interested" although the writ petitioners did not make a reference under Sec. 8 of the Act II of 1948 during the life of the said Act. In the instant case, the Collector appears to be have refused to entertain the said application on a specious plea that the said Act would not apply to Act II of 1948 as the said Act was temporary in nature and died its natural death on 31st March, 1997. The learned Single Judge considering the provisions of Act I and Act II of the Land Acquisition Act held that the writ petitioners are the persons aggrieved and are entitled to claim enhanced compensation under Sec. 28A of Act I of 1894 and accordingly, directed the Collector to consider the application for enhancement of compensation. This order gives rise to the present appeal.