AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brij Narain, J.C.
This is an appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the wder of the learned District Judge, Tripura dated 19-9-1955 passed in land acquisition case No. 1 of 1955 dismissing the reference under S. 18 of the Act made by the Collector of Tripura on contest with costs to the State Government.
By notification No. 14396-99 R dated 22-12-1953 published in the Tripura Gazette on 26-12-1953 the District Magistrate of, Tripura declared the lands measuring 34''50 acres of Pratapgarh Tea Estate lying in mouzas Pratapgarh and Badharghat to be a notified area under S. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act 1948 (West Bengal Act 21 of 1948) as extended to Tripura by notification No. 86 J dated 1-8-1950 by the Government of India in the Ministry of States read with notification No. 93 LR/IV-3/52 dated 27-2-52 issued by the Government of Tripura.
On the same date i.e. on 22-12-1953 by notification No. 14400-03 R the District Magistrate declared that the said lands 34''50 acres in area comprising a part of Partapgarh Tea Estate and situate in mouzas Pratapgarh and Badharghat were required for public purposes namely, for construction of police barracks, officers'' quarters etc. This notification was also published in the` Tripura Gazette on 26-12-1953.
Notices under S. 9 clauses 1 and 2 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 20-9-1954 and all persons interested in the land were called upon to appear personally or by agent on 21-9-1954 at the office of the District Magistrate and Collector.
A copy of this notice was also issued to Maharaj Kumar Brajendra Kishore Dev Burma, Managing Director of Pratapgarh Tea Estate, Agartala and by means of the formal notice under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act he was asked to appear before the Collector on 21-9-1954 vide Ext. 4 (A). The award under S. 11 of the Act was made on 25-9-1954 and a sum of Rs. 1,09,984/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant and on the same day the Collector took possession of the lands acquired vide Ext. C(1).
On 14-10-1954 an application was made on behalf of the Managing Director under S. 31 of the Act for paying him the compensation money but it was made clear therein that he was prepared to accept the money under protest.
On 1-11-1954 the Managing Director made an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Collector of Tripura requesting him to make a reference to the District Judge, as he challenged the sufficiency of the award on a number of grounds viz., (1) that the lands including the tea bushes, fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees were not properly and adequately valued, and the number of tea bushes was not correctly counted; (2) that the damage that would be caused to the drier machine by its removal was not taken into consideration; and (3) that the removal cost of machinery was under assessed.
It was also contended that the appellant did not get sufficient time for filing a proper claim in pursuance of S. 9 of the Act as at least 15 days'' time should have been allowed. The claimant made a claim to the extent of Rs. 4,25,718/15/- on account of compensation in the Court of the District Judge.
This was opposed by the State of Tripura and the learned District Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant had accepted the valuations made and also the award and so the company cannot be heard to say that Barin Chatterjee who represented the company before the Collector was not authorised to accept the valuation. The learned District Judge went into the merits of the case also and he held that compensation allowed to the claimant was really inadequate and a sum of Rs. 1,17,725/- should, have been allowed.
The main contention of the appellant before me is that the learned District Judge was not right in holding that the appellant had accepted the award and so the reference was not maintainable. There is no doubt that in support of the contention that the award has been accepted, reference is made to the evidence of Sri R. Ghosh, who was the Collector who made the award. His statement shows that Mr. Barin Chatterjee who appeared on behalf of the company accepted the valuation and the award made and after the valuation was accepted he ordered that the money should be paid.
It has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that as the financial position of the company was precarious at that time, the company accepted the valuation and so it should not be allowed to resile from the original position.
The learned District Judge has also relied on the evidence of Sri Pratap Talapatra, Superintendent of the Tea Estate and his statement is to the effect that Barin Babu appeared on behalf of the company and later on the Superintendent also appeared before the Collector on 21-9-1954 and then he was asked by the Collector to send Barin Babu. He conveyed this information to Barin Babu as well as the Managing Director and the Managing Director asked him to inform Barin Babu to appear before the Collector. Barin Babu informed him that on 25-9-1954 everything had been settled and this information was duly communicated to the Managing Director.
It has not been disputed before me that Barin Chatterjee and Sri Priyanath Banerjee, Advocate were the claimant''s agents but the latter had died and the former did not understand legal matters. It also appears that the appellant required money but from that fact alone it cannot be inferred that the Managing Director agreed to accept a very low amount of compensation. Even if Barin Babu stated something before the Collector the question would remain whether his statement would bind the present appellant.
In this connection it is pertinent to mention that even though S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act makes it obligatory to give 15 days'' notice, hardly 5 days'' time was given to the claimant. Then there is an additional fact that the money was accepted by the Managing Agent not in an unqualified manner but clearly ""under protest".
The Managing Director would naturally require sometime for studying the situation and unless he accepted the amount of compensation without protest, I think the appellant company cannot be deemed to be estopped from raising an objection regarding inadequacy of compensation money. In view of these circumstances, I think the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant was not competent to raise any objection regarding the inadequacy of compensation money simply because Mr. Ghosh the District Magistrate believed that Barin Babu had the full authority to finally settle the matter regarding compensation.
If Mr. Ghosh wanted to rely on Barin Babu completely he should have examined the scope of the latter authority to work on behalf of the appellant company but he did not do so. If on account of the death of the company''s agent Sri Priyanath Banerjee, Advocate and on account of Barin Babu''s not being able to appreciate legal matters, the latter stated something which was believed by the District Magistrate to be sufficient to settle the matters finally, the appellant cannot legally be deemed to be barred from raising objections at a subsequent stage regarding the inadequacy of compensation money.
I, therefore, disagree with the learned District Judge in his finding on this point and I hold that the District Judge could go into the merits of this case and reference was improperly rejected on this preliminary point.
Coming now to the merits of the reference I find that Rs. 43,125/- were awarded as compensation for lands, Rs. 28,449/12/- for trees, Rs. 16,922/- for houses, Rs. 13,274/8/- as additional compensation on the market value under S. 23, clause 2 and Rs. 8,212/12/- on account of removal costs of hutments, etc.
The learned District Judge has discussed the entire evidence and he has come to the conclusion that Rs. 1,17,725/11/- should have been the proper compensation and the parties have not been able to assail this assessment before me on any reasonable grounds and so I accept this assessment as correct and I hold that the appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 1.17,725/11/- instead of Rs. 1,09,984/- only.
The appeal is allowed and the appellant will be paid Rs. 1,17,725/11/- as compensation less the sum which has already been paid. The parties will get and pay costs according to their success and failure in both the Courts.