LATIKA RANI BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 37 of 1972 in the 8th Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore for certain reliefs. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiffs. On hearing the parties and after examining the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.

(2.) The aggrieved plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. It is not disputed that the defendant No. 3 became a lessee under the Khasmal Department in respect of the 'A' schedule property. On the basis of a contract, the plaintiffs got a decree against the defendant No. 3 in respect of the 'B' Schedule property, forming part of the 'A' Schedule property, and also had a deed executed in their favour on 8-10-62. The plaintiffs claimed that in execution, they got possession of the properties and then exercised acts of possession by putting up sign board and fencing up the land. The plaintiffs stated that they were next taking steps for mutation of their names and at that juncture came to know that the entire property was intended to be acquired by the C.I.T. The plaintiffs made representation for exemption of the plot of the CIT authorities. As per statement of the plaintiffs, the CIT authorities gave out that the scheme was sent to the Government for sanction and though after approval, they would consider the case of the plaintiffs for a reinstatement plot. While the plaintiffs were so making representation, they got information that land acquisition proceedings were commenced and they were advised to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. The plaintiffs thereupon sent several letters by registered post on diverse dates, but no reply was received. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Collector communicated to the plaintiffs that an award was already made on 30-6-69. The plaintiffs then asked for further particulars, but the same were not furnished. Ultimately, on inspection through lawyer, the plaintiffs came to know that an area of 3 bighas, 5 cottahs, 3 chittacks and 25 sq. ft., including the plaintiffs' 'B' Schedule property was acquired. The plaintiffs also came to know that compensation Rs. 6,900 per cottah was allowed and the entire compensation money was paid to the defendant No. 3 on 14-8-69 and 10-10-69 respectively. The plaintiffs made grievance that no S.A. was allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The plaintiffs' stand was that they became owners of the 'B' Schedule property and that the defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the same. On that basis, the plaintiffs described the Land Acquisition case proceedings without notice upon them as irregular, etc., and as collusive. The defendant No. 3 had withdrawn the price of the 'B' Schedule property also, without having any right. Describing the entire proceedings for acquisition of the 'B' Schedule property as illegal, mala fide, collusive, etc., the plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs. 1,58,000, including S.A., on account of the land acquired besides interest @ 6% from June, 1969, that is the date of delivery of possession, to the date of filing of suit was claimed. The plaintiffs made reference to the service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The defendant No. 1, the State of West Bengal, filed a written statement and contested the suit. The defendant No. 1 submitted that the plaintiffs filed application before the Land Acquisition Authorities after the filing of the award. The defendant No. 1 also pointed out that the application, dated 30 12-70 was not a reference petition. Then the defendant No. 1 pleaded that notices were served upon all persons known or believed to be interested. And, it was submitted, the defendant No. 1 had no personal knowledge regarding the plaintiffs' position. Allegation as to collusion etc. was repudiated. The service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also not admitted. The defendant No. 1 urged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any compensation.