STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. KESSON CHAND KOCHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of these four appeals turns on a single question and that is whether the State of West Bengal is bound by four compromise decrees passed by the Supreme Court on the 2nd March, 1954, although it was not a party to any of them. The facts upon which this question arises are not in dispute and are as follows:

(2.) On divers dates in the years 1938 and 1939, certain plots of land together with structures and trees standing thereon were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector for the Calcutta Improvement Trust. Four land acquisition cases were started for the acquisition of these four plots of land. There were two grounds of rival claimants for compensation: (a) the landlords who may be collectively described as the Kochers and (b) the tenants who may be collectively described as the Mitras. In respect of the lands which formed the subject-matter of the acquisition the Collector made joint awards in favour of the landlords and tenants. Against the awards of the Collector the Kocher landlords filed applications for references disputing the amount of compensation and also claiming the entire amounts for themselves to the exclusion of the tenants. Those applications gave rise to four references which were cases Nos. 33, 61, 87 and 93 of 1939. The State of West Bengal was a party to all these valuation references. Besides the above four valuation references, four apportionment cases were also started upon the landlords' plea that they were exclusively entitled to the entire amount of compensation, and these apportionment cases were Nos. 117, 118, 119 and 123 of 1941 in which the State of West Bengal was not impleaded as a party. The Mitra tenants did not file any effective application challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and confined their claim to the shares they were entitled to get in the apportionment cases. In the valuation references made at the instance of the Kocher landlords the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal enhanced the valuation in the following manner:

(3.) It is common ground that since the Mitra tenants did not file any application challenging the Collector's valuation they were not entitled to any part of the enhancement allowed by the Tribunal. This proposition follows from the provisions of Sections 12, 20 (b) and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act and also the decisions of the Judicial Committee and of this Court referred to in the judgment of the Tribunal and is not disputed before us. In the apportionment cases to which the State of West Bengal was not a party the Tribunal held that the Kocher landlords were entitled to 13% annas of the compensation and the Mitra tenants to the remaining 2 1/2 annas share. Against the order of the Tribunal the Mitra tenants filed four First Appeals to this Court which were registered as First Appeals Nos. 91, 93, 94 and 242 of 1945. By a judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 91 of 1945, which was to govern the other three appeals, this Court held on the 14th March, 1950, that the Kocher landlords were entitled to get only thirty tunes the annual rent as compensation and the entire balance was to go to the Mitra tenants. Against the decrees of this Court the Kocher landlords filed four appeals to the Supreme Court which were decreed on compromise on the 2nd March, 1954. The material provisions of the compromise decree passed by the Supreme Court are as follows :