UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEBEN ADHICARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals arise out of Arbitration Cases Nos. 24, 26 and 27 of 1972. All these cases have been disposed of by the learned Arbitrator appointed under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 by one common judgment and award.

(2.) It appears that a total quantity of 6.79 acres of land of Mouza Banspole in the district of 24-Parganas, were requisitioned on April 25, 1942 by the Government under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. Thereafter, the land was permanently acquired on Aug. 1, 1946 under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 75A on behalf of the Central Government, Ministry of Defence, for the purpose of Baigachhi Air Field. The acquired land consisted of Danga, Doba, Garden, Bastu and Sali land. The Collector assessed the final compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 35/- per bigha. The referring claimant, Debendra Nath Adhicary purchased 17.64 acres of land of the said Mouza including the acquired land by five registered deeds of sale from different owners between 1948 and 1949, that is, long after the acquisition of the said 6.79 acres of land, for a consideration of Rs. 9,445/- only. The referring claimant did not accept the offer of compensation by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 35/- per bigha and, accordingly, the Central Government appointed an Arbitrator under Section 19(1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939 by a Notification dated April 11, 1972 for the determination of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land. The referring claimant filed his statements of claim before the learned Arbitrator claiming compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 800/- per bigha. Further he claimed compensation for the trees at the rate of Rs. 600/- per fruit bearing tree. He also claimed statutory allowance of 15% on the market value of land, and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation.

(3.) The Union of India contested the claim of the referring claimant by filing a written statement. It was inter alia contended that the claim of the referring claimant was barred by limitation, that the compensation assessed by the Collector was just and fair, and that the referring claimant was not entitled to statutory allowance of 15% or interest on the amount of compensation, as claimed by him.