LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. GOURAPRIYA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a reference made u/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in which the court has granted compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per acre for nearly 35 acres of land in favour of the present respondent.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that a notification u/s.4(1) of the Act was made on 2-5-1975 and the lands acquired under the said notification comprised of a tank as well as waste lands. The respondent claimed to be entitled to the compensation on the basis that he had obtained the said lands by way of lessee from the ex-intermediary sometime in the year 1944. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,409/- for 15 acres of land on the assumption that 15 acres were acquired under the notification u/s.4(1) of the Act. He awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre so far as the tank is concerned, and at the rate of Rs. 700/- per acre in respect of the fallow land. The respondent filed an application u/s.18 of the Act praying for a reference to be made to the Court for the purpose of determination of the quantum of compensation and also claiming compensation for the balance 20 acres of land which were covered under the notification u/s.4(1) and for which no compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. A reference to the Court was made pursuant to the said application. 2A. Before the Court the present appellant challenged the locus standi and entitlement to the compensation by the petitioner saying that the lease by the ex-intermediary was not a permanent lease, but was for a period of 15 years expiring sometime in the year 1959. According to the appellant, the estate vested in the year 1953-54 as a consequence of which the rights of the lessee, if any, got extinguished and the property vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus according to the appellant, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever, as he had no interest in the lands after vesting. It was next contended by the appellant before the Court that assuming that the leasehold right of the respondent did not vest nor got extinguished by the operation of vesting notification, he was at best entitled to continue to possess the land as a lessee for the unexpired portion of 15 years after the date of vesting and by the date of notification u/s.4(1) of the Act there was no surviving right with the respondent so as to be entitled to compensation.

(3.) The respondent in the court below, in view of the points taken by the present appellant took the stand that even assuming that the lease had expired after the vesting he would be a tenant holding over within the meaning of S.116 of the T. P. Act and, therefore, be entitled to compensation. The learned trial Court has not arrived at a definite conclusion as to whether the lease was a permanent one and was for a limited period of 15 years. He has found fault with both the parties for not having produced the relevant documents which could hold for determination of the period of lease. The learned court below, however, proceeded that assuming that the lease was for a period of 15 years and had expired after the vesting of the estate, the respondent would still be regarded as a tenant holding over in respect of the property and in that view of the matter would be entitled to compensation. He held that the proper compensation for the lands in question should be Rs. 3,500/- per acre and that the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in awarding compensation for 15 acres of land though the total extent of land acquired under the notification was 35.05 acres. He, therefore, awarded compensation for the entire land covered by the notification.