DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. MAMAT KAIBARTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to dispose of the appeals by a common judgment as they arise out of a common award made by the Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and involve common questions of fact and law. The Arbitrator awarded compensation for acquisition of land @ Rs. 10,000/ - per bigha fixed the annual recurring compensation for the requisitioned period at Rs. 200/ - per bigha and also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land till the final payment.

(2.) BY Notification dated 22 -7 -67 lands belonging to the Respondents were requisitioned and possession was taken over on 4 -5 -1968. Thereafter the competent authority acquired the lands on 24 -6 -1971 under the provisions of 'the Act'. The Deputy Commissioner awarded recurring annual compensation for the land at rates ranging from Rs. 45/ -to Rs. 60/ - per bigha, according to the classifications of the lands and awarded acquisition compensation @ Rs. 4,000/ - per bigha for paddy land, @ Rs. 5,300/ -per bigha for 'Bustee land on the basis of the award of the Arbitrator in another land acquisition case No. 228 of 1962, without making any endeavour to make any agreement, as required under 'the Act.' The claimants being dissatisfied made representations and the Arbitrator was appointed to determine compensation. On the basis of the claims and counter -claims of the parties, the Arbitrator framed the following issues : - -

(3.) HOWEVER , in reaching the conclusions the learned Arbitrator made various mistakes. In Naren Kalita's case (supra) he awarded annual recurring compensation @ Rs. 300/ - per bigha and not at the rate of Rs. 200/ -. Further in that case he awarded acquisition compensation @ Rs. 12,000/ - per bigha. As such, we find that in view of errors of records the learned Arbitrator did not award just compensation for the acquisition and requisition of the land. However, there is no cross appeal by the claimants. It hag been submitted by Mr. R. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Claimants Respondents that they had no fund to fight litigations. On perusal of the records we find that the present lands are in the vicinage of Naren Kalita's land. Mr. D. W Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate found difficulties in wriggling out the binding decision of this Court in Naren Kalita's case (supra) and the admitted position set out above.