PRASANNAKUMAR DATTA Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the claimants against an award made by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet, exercising the powers under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that certain lands of the claimants were compulsorily acquired for the K.L.V. Railway line. The lands form the western portions of the claimants homestead, as will appear from the map prepared by the pleader commissioner, which is annexed to the paper-book. The homestead of the claimants is a very large one and towards the west of the homestead there is a wall of a certain height; there is also a wall towards the north of the homestead. On notice being given for the acquisition of the land for the purpose of the railway line, one of the claimants, Prasannakumar Datta, wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Collector on 26 January 1927, in which he stated that the K.L.V. Railway line has touched the border line of the western compound wall of his residential house at Kayasthegram and the band of the line seriously disturbed the privacy of his house, having exposed it to public view. To avoid this, namely the infringement of his privacy, the letter further states that he had been compelled to reconstruct the entire length of his pucca wall with greater width and height involving an extra expenditure of Rs. 2,200.

(2.) On receipt of this letter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer asked for proof about the expenditure for reconstructing and raising the height of the wall. In reply, Prasanna, one of the claimants, submitted an estimate of Rs. 2,200 as being the cost required for the reconstruction of and raising of the height of the wall in question. Upon this, the Land Acquisition Collector made an award allowing Rs. 524 for raising the height of the existing wall and this was awarded as compensation due to proprietor's damage Under Section 23(4), Land Acquisition Act. The petition for reference Under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, was made not only on behalf of Prasanna, but also on behalf of his two brothers, the other two claimants Purnendu and Saradindu. In para. 7 of that petition it was stated that the letter of 26th January being hurriedly written the estimates and the calculations were made erroneously and that, since writing that letter, the claimants prepared correct estimates and calculations and they asked for time to rectify the mistakes in that letter, which was treated as a sort of petition made to the Collector under the Act claiming compensation and they wanted compensation to the extent of Rs. 6,825 for constructing and raising the wall. On 9 July 1928, a petition for amendment of the application for reference Under Section 18 of the Act was made and the amount of claim was raised to Rs. 25,000 and this amount was claimed as cost for erecting the wall in question. After taking evidence on behalf of the claimants, as also on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Subordinate Judge made an award for a sum of Rs. 3,445, and this award was in excess of the claim as originally laid in the letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 26 January 1927.

(3.) Against this award, the present appeal has been brought by the claimants and-it is contended that the award has been inadequate and that, on the evidence furnished, not only on their own behalf but even on the evidence of the engineer examined on behalf of the Secretary of State, the claimants are entitled to a larger compensation. It is to be noticed however that, so far as this ground of appeal, viz. the claim for an excess sum over and above the sum which has already been awarded by the Court and which is in excess of the original claim by their letter of 26 January 1927, is concerned, the appellants are met by the provisions of Section 25 of the said Act. It has practically been conceded by Mr. Sen, who appears for the appellants, that Section 25 really bars the claim of the appellants for an excess sum as made in this appeal, if his clients had the notice served on them Under Section 9 of the Act. Section 25(1) of the Act runs as follows: When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given Under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less then the amount awarded by the Collector Under Section 11.