Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Jatindra Nath Ghatak & Ors vs Manik Chatterjee & Ors on 18 April, 2008Author:Bhaskar BhattacharyaBench:Bhaskar Bhattacharya1

Form No. J(2)


                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Appellate/Revisional/Civil Jurisdiction


Present:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya
             And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rudrendra Nath Banerjee


                            F.A. No. 386 of 1997
                        Jatindra Nath Ghatak & Ors.
                                   Versus
                          Manik Chatterjee & Ors.


                                         With


                             F.A.T. No.1427 of 2001
                                       With
                               C.A.N. 381 of 2007
                                Smt. Shila Sarkar
                                      Versus
                            Supratik Chatterjee & Ors.



For the Appellant/Appellant:                Mr S.P. Roychowdhury,
                                            Mr Anit Kumar Rakshit,
                                            Mr Pasupati Sana.


For the Respondent/Opposite Party:          Mr Bidyut Kumar Banerjee,
                                            Ms Shila Sarkar.


For the State-respondent:                   Mr Alok Kumar Biswas,
                                            Mrs Moupiya De,
                                            Ms Gargi Biswas.
                                      2

Heard on: 03.04.2008.




Judgment on: 18th April, 2008.




Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:These two first appeals arise out of two Reference cases underSection 18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and those are directed against the common

judgement dated 11th October, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Purulia, in L.A. Reference Case Nos.52 of 1987 and 53 of 1987, thereby

dismissing those reference cases.The State of West Bengal, on 16th September, 1985 issued a Notification

underSection 4of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the Acquisition of 1.57

acres of land in question in the village of Purulia being J.L. No.292 (2), P.S.

Purulia, being R.S. Plot Nos.4485 and 4486 in full and part of R.S. Plot Nos.4741

and 5097 of mouza Purulia for construction of a Post Office Building and the

Staff Quarters.The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in favour of one

Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, the recorded tenant of the land acquired. Jatindra Nath

Ghatak and others, the appellants of F.A. 386 of 1997, made reference underSection 18of the Act (L.A. Reference case of 53 of 1987) thereby alleging that3they were tenants in respect of the portion of the land sought to be acquired and

accordingly, they are entitled to get part of compensation which has been

exclusively   given   to   Mrityunjoy   Chatterjee.   According   to   the   claimants,

Mrityunjoy Chatterjee had no right of compensation over the part of the property

over which they acquired title.Similarly, the L.A. Reference Case No.52 of 1987 was started at the

instance of one Shila Sarkar, the appellant of the other appeal before us, who

claimed that she was also a co-tenant of a part of the land sought to be acquired

and claimed compensation in respect of her interest and also at the higher

valuation.The aforesaid two reference cases were opposed by Mrityunjoy Chatterjee,

being represented by his heirs, thereby alleging that neither Jatindra Nath

Ghatak and others nor Shila Sarkar had any right, title and interest over any

portion of the land which had been acquired by the notification in question.The heirs of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee themselves filed a reference praying for

enhancement of the amount awarded in favour of their predecessor and as such,

all the three cases were heard analogously by the Land Acquisition Judge. By the

common judgement impugned herein, the Reference Court below has turned

down the objections raised by Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others as well as Shila

Sarkar thereby dismissing their reference cases.4Being dissatisfied, these two appeals have been preferred, one at the

instance of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others and the other, by Shila Sarkar.Mr Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants in these two appeals, strenuously contended before us that the

learned Reference Judge did not take into consideration the objections raised by

his clients and simply proceeded on the basis of recording of the name of

Mrityunjoy Chatterjee in the Revisional Record of Rights. Mr Roychowdhury

contends that the entry in the Record of Right does not create any title in respect

of the property and at the most, the said entry is a piece of evidence showing

possession of the person in whose name the same stands over the property in

question. Mr Roychowdhury points out that the main reason for rejecting the

reference made by his clients is that in the proceedings under Section 44(1) of

the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, the concerned officer upheld the

objection raised by Mrityunjoy Chatterjee and incorporated his name in place of

the names of his clients which were there up to the stage of attestation. Mr

Roychowdhury submits that just because his clients did not take any step

against the recording of name of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee in the Revisional Record

of Right, such fact cannot extinguish the title of his clients. Mr Roychowdhury

points out that the name of Mrityunjoy Chatterjee was recorded for the first time

in 1978 whereas the acquisition proceeding started in the year 1985, not even

before the expiry of 12 years from the date of recording the name of Mrityunjoy

Chatterjee in the latest record of right. Mr Roychowdhury, therefore, contends5that in view ofArticle 65of theLimitation Act, 1963his clients' title to the

property has not extinguished on the date of issue of notification underSection 4of the Land Acquisition Act.On merit, Mr Roychowdhury points out that Mrityunjoy Chatterjee

purportedly acquired title to the property by taking a settlement from the

Zamindars in the year 1944 after the alleged surrender of tenancy right by the

previous tenant whereas his clients purchased the property from the previous

recorded tenant long before the institution of the suit by the Zamindars against

the predecessor-in-interest of his clients. Mr Roychowdhury submits that his

clients were not made parties to the suit of the year 1933 filed by the Zamindars

and, therefore, were not bound by the decree passed against the predecessor of

his clients because at the time of institution of the suit, the predecessor of his

clients had already conveyed his interest in favour of his clients. Mr

Roychowdhury, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgement passed by the

learned Judge and declaring his clients as lawful tenants in respect of the portion

of the property acquired by them.Mr Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent, however, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr Roychowdhury

and has pointed out that so far Shila Sarkar is concerned, she, according to her

own case, acquired the property from one Nagendra Nath Ojha by a registered

document of 1969 and the said document would show that she acquired the6property situated on the Rainy Road being municipal holding no. H- 294/1

situated in Sector-III thereof situated on Rainy Road. Mr Banerjee points out that

it appears from the notification of the acquisition itself that the property acquired

was not situated on the Rainy Road but was really on Deshbandhu Road, which

is in the Sector-II of the Municipality. In this connection, Mr Banerjee relies upon

the information slip given by the concerned Municipality showing that

Deshbandhu Road was all along in Sector-II of the Municipality even in the year

1932 at the time of acquiring the property by Nagendra Nath Ojha, the

predecessor-in-interest of Shila Sarkar. By relying upon such document, Mr

Banerjee contends that Shila Sarkar did not acquire any title to the property,

which has been acquired by the notification.As regards the reference case initiated by Jatindra Nath Ghatak and

others, Mr Banerjee points out that those persons claimed title in respect of C.S.

Khatian No.205 of Mouza Purulia which consisted of plot nos.903, 904 and 905

only whereas the acquired property is the lands situated in plot of R.S. Plot Nos.

4485, 4486, 4741 and 5097. According to the averment made in paragraph 9 of

the application of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others, C.S. Plot Nos. 903, 904 and

905 correspond to R.S. Plot No.4484. Mr Banerjee, therefore, contends that R.S.

Plot No.4484 being not the subject-matter of acquisition, Mr Roychowdhury's

said clients cannot have any claim over the compensation. He, therefore, prays

for dismissal of this appeal.7After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through

the materials on record, we find that so far the case of Jatindra Nath Ghatak and

others is concerned, they claim their right in C.S. Khatian No.205 of mouza

Purulia. The C.S. record of right shows that Ghatak and others' names were

recorded in respect of the three plots being plot nos.903, 904 and 905. As

pointed out earlier, it has been admitted in paragraph 9 of the reference

application that during R.S. operation, R.S. Plot No.4484, corresponding to C.S.

Plot Nos.903, 904, 905, 906 and 907, and a portion of 908 measuring 1.87 acres

was recorded in the names of Ghatak and others up to the stage of attestation

but the same was subsequently changed on the objection raised by Mrityunjoy

Chatterjee. It appears that R.S. Plot No.4484 is not the subject-matter of

acquisition and, therefore, Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others cannot claim any

right at least over the acquired plots, which is not R.S. Plot No.4484 but R.S. Plot

Nos.4485, 4486, 4741 and 5097.Therefore, Jatindra Nath Ghatak and others had no right to claim

compensation for acquiring any part of the property covered under the

notification of acquisition and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court

below rejecting the reference was correct although we do not approve the reasons

assigned by the learned Trial Judge in the award impugned.8Similarly, the claim of Shila Sarkar is equally devoid of any substance. It

appears from the purchase-deed of Shila Sarkar that she purchased municipal

holding no. H-294/1 situated on Rainy Road in Sector-III of the Municipality.

Information slip at page 106 of the paper book issued by the Municipality shows

that Deshbandhu Road, which is the subject-matter of acquisition, is situated in

Sector-II of the Municipality from 1932 whereas Shila Sarkar purchased land in

Sector-III. Therefore, it is apparent that purchased property of Shila Sarkar on

Rainy Road has no connection with the acquired land at Sector-II of Deshbandhu

Road and, therefore, Shila Sarkar has no legitimate claim over the acquired land.We, therefore, find no merit in the claim alleged in these two appeals

though we do not approve the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge. We

dismiss the claim of the appellants on the grounds disclosed by us above. In view

of the fact that even on the basis of the allegation made in the respective

reference applications, the appellants failed to prove any right, title or interest

over the acquired plots, we find no reason to enter into the submissions of Mr

Roychowdhury for the purpose of ascertaining whether Mrityunjoy Chatterjee

acquired valid title by way of his settlement from the Zaminders over the

acquired lands when the State is not disputing the title of Mrityunjoy. We have

already pointed out that the appellants at least have not acquired any title over

the acquired properties by virtue of their settlements.9The appeals, therefore, are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances,

there will be, however, no order as to costs.(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.)

       I agree.(Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.)