JOY NARAYAN CHANDRA Vs. MURARI MOHAN CHAKRABARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two bighas 2 cottas 5 chittaks 14 square feet of land together with structures thereon constituting premises Nos. 45-2 and 45-4, Diamond Harbour Road, having been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act a sum of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) and odd was assessed as the value of the land including statutory allowance. The Collector made an award in respect of the amount in favour of the Kamani Industrial Bank, Ltd., as lakhe-rajdars owners. On applications made by several parties as claimants the matter came up on reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The controversy in the reference was eventually reduced to a contest as amongst 4 sets of parties, namely claimants Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5. Claimant No. 1 asserted that the whole of the land was included in their Touzis Nos. 3, 8 and 10; claimant No. 2's case was that an undivided one- sixth of the land appertained to his Touzi No. 16; and claimant No. 4 pleaded that another undivided one-sixth share of the land fell within their Touzi No. 51. The Kamani Industrial Bank, Limited, was the claimant No. 5.

(2.) The Collector in his award noted that the entire quantity of land constituted a lakheraj holding appertaining to Touzis Nos. 33, 51, 53, 91, 1 to 6 and 8 to 16. The President of the Tribunal having upheld the award, the claimants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have preferred these appeals. Appeal No. 273 has been preferred by claimant No. 1, No. 274 by claimant No. 4 and No. 275 by claimant No. 2.

(3.) The argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellants in these appeals is that the Collector had no materials on which he could find that the claimant No. 5 had a rent-free title; that the land having been found by the Collector to appertain to touzis of which the appellants are proprietors it was for the claimant No. 5 to prove that he was a rent-free holder and he has failed to discharge that onus that the lakheraj or revenue free title which the claimant No. 5 had set up was not established and that the claimant No. 5 had in fact proved nothing which would justify a decision awarding him the compensation in deprivation of the, appellants to whose touzis the lands appertained.