SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. AMULYA CHARAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Secretary of State for India and against the decision of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Pergannas in reference made to him under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, The land in question is a small plot of land 10 cattas 10 chataks and 16 square feet in area situate near the Kalighat Temple. It may be mentioned that though there was a controversy in the Court below as to the actual area, it is not now disputed that the area is as stated above. The acquisition was made at the instance of the Calcutta Corporation. The Collector awarded to the owners for the land and the structures on it a sum of Rs. 81,675. This was based on the annual assessment of Rs. 3,267 borne on the assessment register of the Corporation The claimants demanded Rs. 1,27,000 (Rs. 20,000 for the structures and the balance for the land, the value being estimated at Rs. 10,000 per catta). The learned Judge has made an award of Rs. 1,09,000. He valued the structures at Rs. 20,000 and the balance he allowed for the land. From this decision the Secretary of State for India has appealed and the claimant-respondents have filed cross-objections which they value at Rs. 18,000.

(2.) The land in suit has to its north the Kalighat Temple Road and on its west lies the main Kalighat Road. On the south is Kalighat 1 lane which leads to the main temple gate. It appears that for some time before there were schemes for improving the area surrounding the temple and this particular bit of land was also the subject of discussion in connexion with the scheme of improvement. The structures were let out by the owners to tenants who catered to the large numbers of pilgrims visiting Kali's temple by providing them with food and shelter and the articles necessary for their devotional purposes. The Corporation decided first to widen the Kalighat 1 lane. The declaration was made on 9 February 1914, and by November 1914, the lane was actually widened and paved to the extent of 20 feet. Par some reason or other a strip of land was left vacant between the land in dispute and the paved Kalighat fist lane. It appears that the Corporation put up a fencing as well. On the 16 February 1914, there was a declaration for the acquisition of land east of this land in suit for constructing a new road. In August 1914, there was a proposal to acquire their disputed land as surplus land of the proposed road to the east. There were objections from various people and the proposal seems to have been given up. In February 1915, the Corporation proceeded to lease out the strip of land between Kalighat 1 lane and the land in suit now. The bids were taken by Messrs. Mackenzie Lyall & Co., in auction. It appears that the bids went up very high and as far as I can Judge suspicions were aroused and the matter was dropped. Thereafter in May 1915, it was decided to construct a colonnaded dharamsala on the site of the land in suit and this was followed up by a declaration of 9 September 1915. The acquisition in question has been made under this declaration. The delay in pushing on the scheme is due to the fact that the owners (the claimants here) tried unsuccessfully to restrain the Corporation from making the acquisition by a suit which they carried to the Privy Council. The acquisition proceedings were renewed after this litigation in 1924 leading up to this appeal.

(3.) Another fact which should be mentioned is that the assessment of 1915 on which the Collector's award is based was disputed at the time when it was made and we have the strange spectacle of the owners claiming that the assessment should be higher and the corporation holding that the rents had been pushed purposely in wiew of the proposed acquisition. The municipality decided that the correct assessment should be the figure on which the Collector has based his award.