D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The respondent's land was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1942. At that point of time, 'sal' trees (timber) were standing on the land. Admittedly the land was utilized for the Military on which buildings were constructed and roads were developed. The land was utilized for the purpose of Panagarh Air Field. Subsequently, the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was enacted for the purpose of governing the cases requisitioned under the Defence of India Act as well as for fresh requisition. Admittedly, the respondents were getting the recurring compensation payable under Sec. 8(2) of the 1952 Act. Ultimately, the land was sought to be acquired in 1975 under the 1952 Act. Pursuant to such acquisition, compensation became payable under Sec. 8(3) of the 1952 Act. 1.1. Since the parties could not agree to the compensation payable an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of Sec. 8(1) of the 1952 Act. Before the Arbitrator certain documents were produced. It does not appear that the appellants had taken any steps in order to contest the said case. It further appears from the Paper Book at page 10 that the learned Arbitrator had requested the Collector by an order dated 26th July, 1995 to forward the record of the case. No records were ever produced before the learned Arbitrator till the Arbitrator had given its decision ultimately on 21st of March, 1996. It appears that the Arbitrator decided the case of one of the respondents Pradip Kumar Agasthi and 4 others in LA Case No. 6 D.I.A of 1972/73 by its Order No. 15 dated 21st March, 1996 while that of Raoson Ali Khan in the same proceedings being LA Case No. 6 D.I.A. of 1972/73 by its Order No. 14 dated 21st March, 1996. This appeal has since been preferred against both these order Nos. 15 and 14 dated 21st March 1996 respectively. 1.2. From page 11 of the Paper Book, it appears that certain documents were forwarded by the Collector on 26th of June, 1996. It included a statement that the lands were comprised in Khatian No. 1 belonging to the State of West Bengal consisting of jungle. Certain R.S. records -of -right were also annexed with the said letter. From the papers, it does not appear that these R.S. records -of -right were the certified copies of the records -of -right. Be that as it may, these documents were never brought on record before the Arbitrator. At the same time, even in this appeal, no application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was filed for adducing those documents in evidence in this appeal. No leave was obtained, neither any attempt was made to produce the original records despite order passed by us to produce the original records. On the other hand, it was submitted that the original records were misplaced and untraceable. 1.3. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents had pointed out that he had already furnished copies of the records, which were in the record before the Arbitrator. Mr. Chatterjee undertook to file an appropriate application annexing those documents by Monday (26th July, 2004). Those documents will be placed on record so as to enable the Department to act on the basis of those documents as reconstructed records. Appellant's submission:
(2.) Mr. Chandrasekhar Das, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the land comprising of jungle are 'Forest Land' which is supposed to be so declared under the Forest Act and Notification to that effect has since been issued including those lands within the Forest Area. Therefore, no compensation is payable to the claimant/respondent. Secondly, he contends that with the coming into force of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, all lands stood vested and no right was given to the raiyat to retain forest land. All forest land stood vested in the State. Therefore, the claimant cannot claim any compensation in respect of those lands. 2.1. Mr. Das also contended alternatively that even if the 'Jungle Lands' were not declared 'Forest' by notification issued under the Forest Act and even if by reason of construction of air field, the land did not remain forest land, then also the claimant/respondent cannot claim anything beyond the retainable area under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The land was not an agricultural one and therefore, it might come within the definition of non -agricultural land or homestead, as the case may be. Therefore, in addition to the homestead or other non -agricultural lands retained by the claimant/respondent, the claimant could retain only the balance area of 20 acres of land, which is permissible to be retained under these heads. Therefore, after adjusting the land outside the acquisition or requisition, the balance area could be available to the claimant for payment of compensation. Claimants/Respondents' submission:
(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, on the other hand, points out on behalf of the respondents that the land was no more a forest land since an air field was constructed on the land and in the air field, roads were developed, run -ways and permanent structures were constructed, therefore, it was no more a 'Forest Land'. That apart, no document has been produced to show that these lands were included within the notification as 'Forest Land'. Before the Arbitrator nothing was produced to show that the land had vested either under the Forest Act or under the Estates Acquisition Act as Forest Land. The records -of -right, which are made part of the Paper Book, does not appear to be the certified copies of the records -of -right, and it is not known whether the lands were so recorded in the records -of -right at the time when the acquisition was made. According to him, notice of acquisition was issued in the name of the claimant. These documents were forwarded only in June, 1996, three months after the decision of the Arbitrator. According to Mr. Chatterjee, these documents might have been prepared for the purpose of the case after the decision of the Arbitrator. Be that as it may, those documents cannot be looked into since they were not part of the records. Nor those can be looked into by this Court since these have not been made part of the records of the appeal. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Das has no legs to stand. 3.1. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, Mr. Chatterjee contends that compensation was determined by the learned Arbitrator on the basis of the documents evidencing contemporaneous transfers at the time of acquisition. There is no flaw or defect in the judgment for which the finding of the Arbitrator and the conclusion arrived at can be interfered with. Therefore, the order of the learned Arbitrator should be maintained. On the other hand, he claims interest and solatium payable on this compensation. Appellant's reply:;