Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 17th August, 1990 delivered by S.K. Bhattacharyya, Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The land upon which the appellant had been running a petroleum product business had been acquired. The possession of the. land in question has been taken over in the year 1982 although notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1972. An award was made on 21.8.1981 in terms whereof the appellant was awarded a sum of 13,000/- by way of loss of business for 6 months. The appellant filed an application for making reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was allowed. From the order-sheet maintained by the learned Land Acquisition Judge it appears, that both the parties had not adduced any evidence and had all along been prayed for adjournment, before the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the referring claimant submitted before the learned Land Acquisition Judge that in view of the decision of this court reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 65 loss of earning should have been assessed at 2 years' loss of earning. The learned Land Acquisition Judge in terms of award dated 17.8.1990 awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000/- in favour of the appellant.
(2.) Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed before us an application purported to be by way of subsequent event wherein it has been stated that although the appellant was to be allotted a plot of land for running the aforementioned business by Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. from whom the appellant obtained grant of retail dealership, the State has not yet allotted any such land.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Singh & Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1995 (Suppl.) (2) SCC, 445 submits that as in the instant case no evidence has been adduced the matter should be remanded back to the learned Land Acquisition Judge. It was stated that in any event the appellant is entitled to solatium or other benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984.;