ANIMA DAS SHARMA AND ANOR Vs. REV LAWRANCE TREVOR PICACHY
LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 17,1976

ANIMA DAS SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
LAWRANCE TREVOR PICACHY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

IN THE MATTER OF TARIT KANTI BISWAS [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMOYI DEBI V. TRILUKHYA NATH [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS V. SIR THAKURJI [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR BASANT SINGH V. KUNWAR BRIJ RAJ [REFERRED TO]
M.IHTISHAM ALI V. JAMNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH VS. DEONARAIN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATARAMIAH VS. A SEETHARAMA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD MAZAFFARALMUSARI VS. BIBI JABEDA KHATUN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ADHIR KUMAR DAS VS. JUTHIKA SEN [LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal arises out of proceedings for appointment of compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.)The land comprised in premises No. 20, Harey Krishna Sett Lane, Calcutta measuring 6 bighas 7 cottahs 12 chhataks 33 Sq. ft. was acquired by the Government under the said Act. The Collector determined the value of the land at Rs. 2,58,786.56. He also valued the structures standing on the acquired land at Rs. 27,500/- and that of the trees at Rs. 750/-. The compensation for the land was awarded to Sm. Amiya Bala Debi, the landlady, and the compensation for the structures and trees was awarded to the respondent Rev. Dr. Lawrence Trevour Picachy S. J. Archbishop of Calcutta, the Executor to the estate of Brahmachari Bewachand Animananda (hereinafter referred to as Animananda). Amiya Bala and the respondent both filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Act. Amiya Bala claimed that she was entitled to the value of the trees. On the other hand, the respondent claimed the entire amount of compensation including that for the land which was awarded by the Collector to Amiya Bala. The case of the respondent was that Animananda was the mourashi mokurari tenant, that is, a permanent tenant, in respect of the said premises No. 20, Harey Krishna Sett Lane, Calcutta under the superior landlady Amiya Bala Debi. According tote the terms of the will of Animananda, the respondent become the sole executor to his estate including the said premises and was entitled to the entire value of the land comprised in the said premises excepting 20 times of the annual rent thereof payable to Amiya Bala. This claim was denied by Amiya Bala and she alleged that Animananda was only a tenant at will in respect of the acquired land. The only question that was involved in the said two reference cases was whether Animananda was a permanent tenant in respect of the acquired land.
(3.)The Special Land Acquisition Judge who heard these two reference cases came to the findings from the evidence adduced before him that Animananda had a permanent interest of a mourashi mokurari tenant in the acquired land. In that view of the matter, he awarded the entire amount of compensation to the respondent excepting a sum Rs. 554/- being 20 times of the annual rent, which was awarded to Amiya Bala. Accordingly, the reference case of Amiya Bala was dismissed and that of the respondent was allowed. After the disposal of the reference cases, Amiya Bala died and the present appeal has been filed by her heirs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.