CALCUTTA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY Vs. HABU CHANDRA CHOSE ALIAS HABU CHARAN GHOSE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CALCUTTA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY
HABU CHANDRA CHOSE ALIAS HABU CHARAN GHOSE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is against an Award passed by an Arbitrator appointed under Act XXX of 1952 in respect of a land acquisition proceeding. The main question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the appellant Calcutta Pinjrapole Society hereinafter referred to as the Society will be entitled to the compensation or the respondent Habu chandra Ghose.
(2.) CERTAIN plots in mouza Barea within P. S. Chakdah were requisitioned under the D. I. Rules on the 20th of november 1943 for military purposes and the same were acquired on the 3rd day of March, 1949 under Act XVIII of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947. An amount of Rs. 4116. 70 was offered as compensation for acquisition to the Society and it accepted that money. Thereafter the respondent filed an application claiming that the valuation was not properly made and that he was entitled to the entire compensation. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator under Act XXX of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952, and the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the respondent will be entitled not the Society to the compensation and he also increased the amount of the Award and directed that the enhanced amount amounting to Rs. 4091. 31 be paid to the claimant Habu, and further made observations that "the claimant shall have the right to recover the sum of rs. 4116. 70 so taken by the Calcutta pinjrapole Society from the Government by appropriate proceedings, if not otherwise barred". Against this order the Society has come up in this appeal and it is urged by Mr. J. K. Sen Gupta that on evidence the learned Judge erred in holding that the claimant will be entitled to the compensation and not the Society.
(3.) MR. A. P. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. According to him the Society did not raise any claim for enhancement of the compensation, and as such is not entitled to it, and further that it can have no grievance that the learned Arbitrator has found that the claimant is entitled to get back the sum paid to the Society inasmuch as in the operative part of the decree no such direction has been made, and only an opinion has been expressed that the claimant would be entitled to get this sum by appropriate proceedings. The point as to whether an appeal would lie in the circumstances so far as the amount paid to the Society is concerned is not free from doubts. But it is not necessary for us to determine this point, inasmuch as the Memorandum of appeal would show that the Society has challenged the order of the learned judge to pay the enhanced sum to the claimant and the valuation of the appeal includes this sum as well. The appeal therefore is competent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.