- (1.) These appeals have been filed by CESC Ltd. questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of three appeals filed by the present appellant challenging common judgment and order of learned Land Acquisition Judge by which he disposed of three references from the award of the Collector. The acquisition of these lands took place under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (in short the 'West Bengal Act') and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act').
(2.) Cross appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of rent and higher rate of interest.
(3.) The number of claimants was quite large and about 20. They were booked in three sets. The land was acquired under the West Bengal Act in May 1995. The requisition was made in 1995 and the Notification was issued on 3.5.1995. The total area was more than 3 bighas. One bigha is 20 cottahs and 1 cottah is 720 sq.ft. The land was part of 10 bigha tract situated in 156A, Manicktala Main Road owned previously by a single common ancestor namely, Kali Pada Barik who had since died. The Collector made the award sometime in the year 1997 and thereafter the Land Acquisition Judge was approached on reference by the Banks i.e., the respondents in the three appeals. The Collector's award was initially on the basis of about Rs. 50,000/- per cottah as compensation but the Land Acquisition Judge on the first occasion raised it to nearly Rupees 5 lakhs per cottah. At that stage the State and the Bariks were opposite parties. Since the land was acquired for the purpose of present appellant which was the requiring authority under the West Bengal Act, acquisition has to be preceded by a requisition for maintenance of supplies essential to public life and in this case supply of electricity was the service involved. A Sub-station i.e. 132 K.V. had already been built over the acquired land. The Requiring Authority filed a Writ Petition before the High Court taking the stand that the matter was decided in its absence. On 3rd May, 2000 order was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court whereby the matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition Judge directing the appellant to be made a party. It also directed that persons who had already been examined before the Land Acquisition Judge would be again presented for cross examination by the appellant subject to their availability. The matter was considered again. The Land Acquisition Judge again made assessment and after hearing the present appellant held that the rale per cottah would be higher. But in view of the fact that earlier a lower rate had been fixed, same was maintained.;