ANANTA RAM BANERJEE Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Premises No. 26, Durga Charan Mukherjee Road in the town of Calcutta which comprises an area of 4 Cottas 12 ch. 30 sq. feet, of which the appellant was the owner, fell within the road alignment of a "projected street" in Scheme No. 9 prepared by the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The appellant desired to erect a building thereon and in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(4), Calcutta Improvement Act, applied to the said Board for permission to erect the same. The Board refused permission, whereupon be demanded acquisition by the Board of the said premises. Negotiations thereafter were started with a letter written by the appellant to the Board on 31 October 1930. This letter has not been produced but the reply has been (Ex. K). The said negotiations were carried on between Mr. Dutt, an advocate of this Court, acting on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ganguly, the Assistant Valuer of the Board, from 14 November to 26 November 1930. At all these negotiations it appears that the appellant was also present. These negotiations terminated in an agreement for the acquisition of the whole of the said premises No. 26 Durga Charan Mukherjee Road. The appellant agreed to a price of Rs. 1,225 per cotta for the land plus statutory allowance of 15%. The terms of the agreement he put down in an application dated 26 November 1930 addressed to the Chairman, Calcutta Improvements Trust (Ex. A.2.16). Para. 5 of the said application runs as follows: That your petitioner is willing to accept Rupees 1,225(one thousand two hundred and twenty five) only per cotta as value of the land besides statutory allowance and other allowances and costs as provided under law and that the said entire premises may be acquired in the course of two months.

(2.) The prayer was as follows: Under the circumstances your petitioner prays for acquisition of the said premises as soon as possible.

(3.) Mr. Dutt's evidence is that although his client, who was then in need of money, at first insisted on the acquisition within two months as a condition precedent-it was on this view the period of two months must have been mentioned in para. 5 of the said application, Ex. A-Mr. Ganguly pointed out that it would not be possible to acquire the same within the said period through the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act and would not have the said term as a condition. Finally it was agreed between his client and Mr. Ganguly that the term about the acquisition within two months was not to be a condition at all. The effect of the agreement between the appellant and Mr. Ganguly therefore was (1) that the whole of premises No. 26, Durga Charan Mukherjee Street was to be taken over by the Board; (2) that the property was to be acquired by the Board through the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act, and (3) that the appellant would get compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 1,225 per cotta plus statutory allowance of 15%.