PROVINCE OF BENGAL Vs. AMULYA DHON ADDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Premises No. 19, Surah Third Lane, was acquired for the purpose of Improvement Scheme No. IV (Maniktolla) made by the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta and sanctioned by the Local Government under the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, v [5] of 1911 B. C. The said premises was at all material times an open piece of land comprising an area of 10 bighas 12 cottas 36 square ft. There were two tanks within it. It abutted on the Sura third Lane which was to its East. It had a vista on a blind lane which stopped at a point of its Southern boundary. There was no roadway on the acquired premises in continuation of that blind lane. The said blind lane is a public one. The plot is shown in the Key plan, EX. 1. On 27th August 1943 the Collector made his award. He gave Rs. 61548-14-0 for the land, Rs. 725 for the trees and Rs. 9311-1.0 as statutory allowance--total Rs. 71614-15 odd.

(2.) The claimants, who are the respondents before us, were dissatisfied with the Collector's award. At their instance the Collector made a reference under the provisions of Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, to the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of chap. IV, Calcutta Improvement Act (V [5] of 1911 B. C.). The Tribunal enhanced the compensation by Rs. 18913-1-0. The judgment of the Tribunal was delivered and signed on 30th January 1947, and the schedule of costs, which is to be taken as equivalent to a decree, was signed by the President of the Tribunal on 7th May 1948. The Province of Ben-gal after obtaining a certificate from the President of the Tribunal to the effect that the case was a fit case for appeal filed the Memorandum of Appeal in this Court on 28th August 1947 and the appeal was duly registered after the Stamp Reporter had reported on the day of the presentation of the Memorandum of Appeal that it was properly stamped, was in form and had been presented in time. At the time of the presentation of the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant had doubts as to whether the appeal was still in time. So on the same day an application was filed with an officer of this Court under Section 5, Limitation Act for extending the time for filing the appeal. As, however, the Stamp Reporter reported that the appeal had been filed in time the appellant's advocate took back the said application.

(3.) When the appeal was opened before us the respondent's advocate took a preliminary objection to the competency of the appeal on the ground that at the date of the presentation of the Memorandum of Appeal it was already barred by time. In these circumstances we allowed the appellant to move with due notice to the respondent's advocate the application which had been filed under Section 5, Limitation Act on the date when the Memorandum of Appeal was presented in this Court but which had been taken back by the appellant's advocate in the circumstances stated above.