Sreema Service Station vs The State of West Bengal

Satyabrata Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against a judgment dated August 17, 1990 delivered by S.K. Bhattacharyya, Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.. The land upon which the Appellant had been running a petroleum product business had been acquired. The possession of the land in question has been taken over in the year 1982 although notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1972. An award was made on August 21, 1981 in terms whereof the Appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000.00 by way of loss of business for 8 months. The Appellant filed an application for making reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was allowed. From the order-sheet maintained by the learned Land Acquisition Judge it appears that both the parties had not adduced any evidence and had all along been prayed for adjournments before the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the referring claimant submitted before the learned Land Acquisition Judge that in view of the decision of this Court reported in State of West Bengal Vs. T.N. Gupta, loss of earning should have been assessed at 2 years'' loss of earning. The learned Land Acquisition Judge in terms of award dated August 17, 1990 awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000.00 in favour of the Appellant.

Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has placed before us an application purported to be by way of subsequent event wherein it has been stated that although the Appellant was to be allotted a plot of land for running the aforementioned business by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. from whom the Appellant obtained grant of retail dealership, the State has not yet allotted any such land.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 2 S.C.C 445 submits that as in the instant case no evidence has been adduced the matter should be remanded back to the learned Land Acquisition Judge. It was-stated that in any event the Appellant is entitled to solatium or other benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984.

So far as the second contention is concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no substance therein. It was for the claimant/Appellant to prove that the amount awarded was incorrect. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jagdish Singh (1995) Suppl. 2 S.C.C 445 is concerned, the fact of the matter is absolutely different. In the instant case parties did not adduce any-evidence but. argued on a legal question which has been answered in favour of the Appellant by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. We may observe that it was not the policy decision of the State that at the time of issuing notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the Petitioner/Appellant shall be rehabilitated. The matter relates to grant of retail dealership of Petroleum products. In a matter of contract between the Appellant and the Hindustan Petroleum, the State has nothing to do. However, if there existed any policy decision adopted by the State in that regards, the Appellant would get the same enforced before the appropriate forum. this Court while considering this matter in terms of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 cannot enhance the compensation on that ground.

However, so far as the third contention raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Counsel, is concerned, the same has substance. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in terms of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act of 1984, the Appellant would be entitled to solatium on the enhanced amount and the interest thereon.

For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed in part.

There will be no order as to costs.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

I agree.