Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
L.A Collector vs Sujit Kumar Manna on 8 February, 2022
19 08.02.2022 FA 7 of 2020
with
Ct-08 I.A No. CAN 4 of 2021
L.A Collector, Hooghly
Vs.
Sujit Kumar Manna
ar
Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta
Mr. Hare Krishna Haldar
Sk. Afazuddin
... For the Appellant
Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya
Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya
... For the Respondent
Re: CAN 4 of 2021
This is an application for release of 50%
decretal amount deposited in favour of the
applicant.
The land acquisition proceeding was initiated
of 2010 arose by virtue of rents made by the
Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of L.A
Case No. 11/4-1993-94, where valuation of
compensation was determined by the L.A
Collector for the land acquiring for the project-
Larger Capacity Automatic Telephone Exchange
and STA at Tarakeshwar.
The learned Additional District Judge, First
Court, Howrah, disposed of the said case on 27th
March, 2015 enhancing the compensation
amount from Rs.3,51,495/-, as determined by
the L.A Collector, to Rs.19,21,214/- along with
certain other benefits including payment of
interest at the rate of 8% over the excess sum of
compensation amount till annual payment is
made.
The appellant preferred the appeal after three
years along with stay petition.
The prayer for condonation of delay was
allowed on 11th December, 2019 in CAN 1 of
2018 (Old No. CAN 7607 of 2018). Thereafter,
the stay petition being CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No.
CAN 7621 of 2018) was disposed of on 9th March,
2021 by directing the appellant to deposit the
entire compensation amount so determined by
the L.A Collector after adjusting the amount
already determined by the Collector within the
last day of May 2021. This amount was not
admittedly deposited with the aforesaid time.
Thereafter, on an application, being CAN 3 of
2021, for extension of time to deposit the
amount, as directed by the order dated 9th
March, 2021, the order was passed on 23rd
December, 2021 by extending the time to deposit
such amount till one week after the Winter
Vacation of 2021 and the respondent was
permitted to renew his prayer for withdrawal of
50% of the deposited amount as prayed for in
CAN 4 of 2021 before the appropriate bench on
the next date.
Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that in terms of the order dated 23rd
December, 2021 the amount was deposited on
6th January, 2022.
It is submitted on behalf of the
State/appellant that in terms of latest decision of
Supreme Court judgment in Nayara Energy
Limited vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported
in AIR 2021 SC 520, the claimant can be allowed
to withdraw 25% of enhanced amount of
compensation without furnishing any security.
Learned counsel for the decree-holder has
relied upon a recent decision of this court in FA
64 of 2021 (State of West Bengal vs. M/s.
Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd.)
with CAN 1 of 2021 and CAN 2 of 2021 on 22nd
November, 2021 considering the entire delay in
preferring the appeal denying the
applicant/respondent of enjoyment of just and
fair compensation allowed 50% of the deposited
amount without furnishing security.
From the aforesaid conspectus fact, it is
evident that the applicant was deprived of getting
benefit for over 25 years. In this petition it is
stated that the wife of the applicant is suffering
from various ailments including nephrological
problem since 2013 and the applicant has
disclosed photo copies of documents from
Appollo Hospital of Madras and other medical
prescriptions in support of need of such fund.
We have considered the submissions made
on behalf of the parties. We have noted that the
coordinate bench of this court in FA 64 of 2021
(State of West Bengal vs. M/s. Bangur Land
Development Corporation Ltd.) with CAN 1 of
2021 and CAN 2 of 2021 on 22nd November,
2021 considering the length of delay in preferring
the appeal thereby denying the
applicant/respondent of enjoyment of just and
fair compensation allowed 50% of the deposited
amount without furnishing security. The
relevant portion of the said order is quoted
below:-
"Learned counsel for the respondent seeks
leave to withdraw 50% of the deposited
amount without security and balance 50% on
furnishing security before the court below. He
relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Baburao s/o Govindrao
Gaikawad and another Versus State of
Maharashtra and others reported in
(2017) 11 SCC 333 in support of his
contentions.
On the other hand, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that he has fair chance
of success in the appeal and the respondent
may be permitted to withdraw only 25% of the
deposited amount without security and the
remainder may be deposited with cumulative
interest. He relied on a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nayara
Energy Limited Versus State of Gujarat
and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 520.
We have considered the rival
submissions of the parties. We note there
was inordinate delay in preferring the appeal
denying the respondent of enjoyment of just
and fair compensation. More so, the
directions for proportionate withdrawal of
compensation sum without security pending
appeal in the cited reports are in the facts of
those case and no inflexible principle of law
has been laid down therein.
In view of the factual matrix of the
present case and balancing the equities
between the parties we direct as follows:
Respondent is at liberty to withdraw
50% of the deposited amount without
furnishing security, however, subject to the
result of the appeal. Reference Court is
directed to deposit the remainder in a short
term fixed deposit scheme in any natioinalised
bank and renew the same from time to time
until further orders."
In the instant case the facts are similar
and accordingly, we follow the decision of the
coordinate bench in State of West Bengal vs.
M/s. Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd.
(supra). Accordingly, we direct the respondent to
withdraw 50% of the deposited amount without
furnishing any security, however, subject to the
result of the appeal.
The appellant shall also file an undertaking
in the appeal within two weeks from date that in
the event the impugned order is set aside the
respondent shall refund the entire amount
realised in terms of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, CAN 4 of 2021 is
disposed of.
CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7607 of 2018)
was disposed of on 11th December, 2019 and
CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 7621 of 2018) was
disposed of on 9th March, 2021. Both the
applications are still appearing in the list.
The department is directed to record that
above two applications were disposed of and
shall not be shown further as pending in the list.
In a large number of matters we find that
disposed of applications are being listed and it
has caused serious inconvenience in disposing of
the matters.
This order shall be immediately
communicated to Registrar( I & T) for information
and taking appropriate steps.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
