Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ramendra Chowdhury vs State Of West Bengal on 19 April, 2023
19.04.2023
S/L. No. 8
Court No.12
Suvayan/
Sourav
FA 14 of 1999
Ramendra Chowdhury
Vs.
State of West Bengal
Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. N. Banik
...for the appellant.
Mr. Ram Chandra Guchhait
...for the State.
1.
Heard Mr. Debasish Kundu, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the land looser/appellant and
Mr. Ram Chandra Guhhait, learned Counsel appearing
for the State.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the
appellant that the present appeal is squarely covered
by the determination made by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals
disposed of on 22.11.2017 [2017 SCC Online Cal.
18181: (2017) 5 CHN 507 (DB): (2018) 181 AIC 808:
(2018) 1 Cal. L.J 559]. The present appeal is by a land
looser. The date of possession of the land was
22.10.1984 and the date of publication of notice under
Section 4(1A) of the West Bengal Act II of 1948 (the Act
II of 1948, for short) is 02.06.1987.
Learned Counsel for the State also fairly
contended that this appeal is covered by the decision
of aforesaid co-ordinate Bench. It is also submitted by
learned Counsel for the State that the State has
preferred no appeals against judgment passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Darjeeling after
remand.
3. It is strenuously submitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellant that the area of the land
looser covered in the present appeal is of the same
locality with which the judgment passed in FA 203 of
2013 and other appeals disposed of on 22.11.2017 by
the co-ordinate Bench (Supra) is concerned. On
perusal of the aforesaid judgment and the appeal
memo in the present case, we are satisfied that the
judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in FA 203
of 2013 and other appeals on 22.11.2017 squarely
covers the facts of the present appeal.
4. In the present appeal different points are raised,
inter alia, the multiplier to be applied instead of 8 to
10; deduction towards cultivation cost be reduced
from 50% to 20%; quantum of loss of earning and
solatium are to be revisited in terms of the market
value as decided in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals.
5. Regard being had to such facts and submissions
and our satisfaction to the effect that judgment passed
in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals squarely covers
the field so far as the present appeal is concerned, we
remand the matter to the learned Additional District
Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling to revisit the matters in
the appeal in the light of the judgment passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FA 203 of 2013 and
other appeals on 22.11.2017 (Supra).
6. The entire exercise be completed within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of records from
this Court. The parties are directed not to indulge in
any unnecessary adjournments in the matter. In
revisiting the matters on remand, learned Additional
District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling shall be guided by
the exercise made by this Court in Land Acquisition
Case No. 2 of 1997 after the remand by the co-ordinate
Bench in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals disposed
of on 22.11.2017 (Supra).
7. Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court,
Darjeeling is directed to do the needful for directing
the payment of at least 50% of the original awarded
amount along with interest during the pendency of the
matters on remand on filing of proper application to
that effect.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order in this appeal
is set aside and the matter is remanded.
9. The records be sent down immediately to the
learned Trial Court through special messenger at the
cost of the land looser.
10. Accordingly, the appeal being FA 14 of 1999 is
disposed of.
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
