JOGESH CHUNDRA SANYAL Vs. RASIK LAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of certain land acquisition proceedings and involve the question of apportionment.

(2.) Appeal No. 245 refers to a plot spoken of as plot No. 81. The case of the appellant then was that one Sarna Moyee Debya held this plot No. 81 under him and his predecessor-in- interest and that Sarna Moyee s interest was that of an occupancy Raiyat, The case of the respondents is that Sarna Moyee held this plot as part of what is spoken of as a kaimi jote under a Brahmatordar of the name of Jadab Adhikari. The appellant s evidence with regard to this plot is extremely meagre.

(3.) True it is that one of his witnesses, a person of the name of Gedu Mullick, says that Sarua Moyee paid rent to Jogesh s father in respect of this holding; but Jogesh does not himself say so. He produces no counterfoils or collection papers and he does not examine his Tahsildar. On these materials we cannot say that the learned District Judge is wrong in coming to the conclusion that Jogesh has not proved that he has any interest in or connection with this plot.