Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A. K. Chakraborty being assisted by the learned Advocates Mr. P. K. Chanda and Mr. P.N. Dutta and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Saptangsu Basu. Considered the materials on record. By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the appellate order dated 19th June, 1995 passed in C. A. No. 31 of 1990 affirming the order of the Competent Authority passed on 10th October, 1990 in Claim Case No. 2 of 1989. In short compass of the fact the case is that the petitioner is a cloth shop located at 13/1/D, Dum Dun Road, Calcutta-700030 adjacent to the entrance of the Dum Dum Railway Station though the cloth shop is in effect a variety shop. For the purpose of construction of Metro Railway through the stretch of the railway tracks lands were acquired, bridges were constructed where it required,buildup were demolition for the purpose of augmentation and introduction of the Metro Railway in Calcutta. The path-way or the lane or the road leading to the shop of the petitioner concerned was used for dumping the material for construction. It has been alleged by the petitioner that due to such use the business of the petitioner has suffered. The petitioner accordingly made an application for compensation and/or damage as contemplated under section 25 of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 before the Competent Authority and a claim case No. 2 of 1989 wat registered before the Competent Authority. The competent Authority being satisfied about the damage granted compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7,500/-. Being aggrieved by the said quantum of damage the petitioner moved the appellate authority under the Act,sad the Appellate Authority observed that there was no loss caused to the petitioner and confirmed the order of the competent Authority. In assessing that there was no loss, the Appellate Authority relied on the l assessment orders of the petitioner by the Sales Tax Authority showing id upward trend of income of the petitioner. This appellate order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
(2.) Mr. Chakraborty, contended that the appellate order is arbitrary, without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Appellate Authority never tried to ascertain its loss in its proper perspective. In the second place, Mr. Chakraborty contended that the amount of compensation as has been awarded is grossly inadequate and as such the same requires intervention by this Court in revision.
(3.) Mr. Basu. on the other hand, contended that the compensation for damage should not have been awarded in view of the fact that the petition under section 25 of the Act has been preferred beyond the period as prescribed under section 26 of the Act. Mr. Basu in his usual fairness further submitted that perhaps this point is not open for him to canvass inasmuch as the compensation so awarded has already been granted by the Railway Authorities but that has not yet been accepted or withdrawn by the petitioner.;