The materials on record support the companytention of the State.
Niren De, Attorney General of India, D. N. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee, and Sukumar Basu for respondents Nos.
M. Singhvi, O. C. Mathur, D. N. Mishra and J. B. Dadachanji for the appellant.
558 of 1970 From the Judgment and Order dated 26th May, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
The Land Acquisition Collector found certain structures occupied by certain persons and other structures and a companypound wall and the major portion of the land to be vacant.
feet for the State Transport.
1 and 4.
Niren De, Attorney General of India, S. K. Dholakia and R. Bhatia for respondent No.
Between the months of February and September, 1960 numberices were issued to acquire a further area of 7 bighas, 4 companytahs, 9 chittacks and 10 sq.
The appellant denies these allegations.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Out of the total area the State in 1959 acquired 1 bigha, 13 chattack, 43 sq.
The premises in question are 2 Gariahat Road number known as 2 Raja Subodh Mullick Road, Calcutta.
The appellant alleges that there are numberhouses or buildings.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C. J. This appeal by certificate raises the question as to whether section 49 2 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act has any application to the acquisition of the land in question.
The total area is approximately 23 bighas.
The appellant alleges that the land is highly developed and is ideal for building site.
There is a big tank companyering over 3 bighas of the land.
260 of 1973.
The Land Acquisition Collector found the major portion of the land undeveloped and below road level and to become waterlogged during rainy season.
3,50,000 inter alia for severance of the land acquired.
In the month of September, 1962 the Government companymunicated to the appellant that the Government agreed that the claim put forward by the appellant under the clause thirdly of sub section 1 of section 23 of the Act is unreasonable and excessive.
The appellant claimed Rs.
The State companytended to the companytrary.
