Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bharat Petroleum vs Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir And Anr on 13 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Hon'ble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash
AND
Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
FA 101 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir and Anr.
With
FA 102 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Gopinath Das and Anr.
With
FA 103 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Masirhur Rahaman and Anr.
With
FA 104 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir and Anr.
With
FA 105 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Gopinath Das and Anr.
With
FA 128 of 2005
Bharat Petroleum
vs.
Nasira Khatoon and Anr.
For the Appellant : Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Amadipta Sengupta, Adv.
For the Private Respondent : Mr. Indra Nath Mukherjee , Adv.
For added Respondent Mr. Surajit Roy, Adv.
in FA 104 of 2005:
Heard on: : 27.04.2023
Judgment on. : 13.06.2023
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -
1. In the instant six appeals the judgement and decree dated 28.08.2002 as
passed by Learned LA Tribunal, Howrah in LA Misc. Case no.28/2001
(Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement
and decree dated 24.06.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.34/2001
(Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement
and decree dated 23.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no. 27/2001
(Gopi Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree
dated 22.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.26/2001 (Sk. Masihur
Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decreed
dated 29.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.32/2001(Gopi Nath Das
vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dated
28.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.33/2001 (Nasira Khatoon vs.
State of West Bengal) as passed by learned Judge, LA Tribunal, Howrah
have been assailed at the instance of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Oil Company') who is the requiring
body of the said land acquisition cases for establishment of their bottling
plant on the lands acquired.
2. Though in the aforementioned Misc. Cases as filed under Section 8 of the
West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 the petitioners
are different and though separate judgements have been passed in all the
aforementioned LA Misc. Cases but as per request made at the Bar, all
the present appeals have been taken up for hearing analogously since
common question of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned six
impugned judgements as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
3. Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellants in
support of the instant appeals at the very outset draws attention of this
Court to the Exhibits nos.1 and 2 of the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases .
It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty that in all the aforementioned Misc.
Cases, the Land Acquisition Tribunal wrongly placed its reliance upon
the said Exhibits nos. 1 and 2 and thus increased the value of the
acquired lands in reference cases under Section 8 of the West Bengal
Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'LA Act of 1948'). It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty that on account
of unreasonable increase of the value of the lands, the exchequer of the
present appellant being the Oil Company has been unnecessarily
burdened and the same is required to be diminished by allowing the
instant appeal. Drawing attention to Section 8 of the LA Act of 1948 it
has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty that learned LA Tribunal while
passing the judgements of the aforementioned six nos. of LA Misc. Cases
did not at all consider Section 8(2) of the LA Act of 1948 wherein it has
been specifically mentioned that Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act of 1894 shall, so far as they may be applicable, apply in respect of a
reference made to the Court under Section 8(1) of the LA Act of 1948. It
is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the
appellant that since the present appellant was served with no notice
either from the Land Acquisition Collector in course of fixation of
compensation of the acquired lands for the appellant or from the LA
Tribunal while disposing the aforementioned Misc. Cases under Section
8 of the LA Act of 1948, the present appeals may be allowed by
remanding all the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases to the learned LA
Tribunal for hearing afresh after giving an opportunity to the present
appellant being the requiring body to file its objections in the said Misc.
Cases under Section 8 of the LA Act of 1948.
4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the Oil Company / appellants
further submits before this court that though no formal leave was /were
obtained before preferring the instant appeals but considering the facts
that the instant appeals having been admitted long back, heard on merit
and direction for filing informal paper books having been passed with an
order of stay of the operation of the impugned order, it ought to have
been presumed that the leave is/are impliedly granted by the Hon'ble
Court to the Oil Company/ appellant to proceed with the instant appeal.
5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant/Oil Company in
course of his submission places his reliance upon the following decisions
namely:-
a. Delhi Development Authority vs. Bholanath Sharma And
Anr. (Dead) by L.Rs reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54;
b. BSNL vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 4 WBLR
283: (2012) 5 CHN 680; and
c. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority vs. State of
West Bengal reported in (2005) 2 CLT 141 (High Court).
6. Per contra, Mr. Indra Nath Mukherjee, learned advocate for the
respondents in the instant appeals submits before this Court that the
learned LA Tribunal while passing the impugned judgements committed
no error of fact or of law in placing its reliance upon the Exhibit no.1 and
Exhibit no.2 of the aforementioned Misc. Cases in order to come to a
logical conclusion with regard to the valuation of the acquired land in
comparison to the previously acquired land in the vicinity. It is submitted
by Mr. Mukherjee, that the amount of compensation as awarded by the
Land Acquisition Tribunal is paltry and therefore there cannot be any
justification to deprive the land losers from the usufructs of the
judgements and decrees as passed by the LA Tribunal. Mr. Mukherjee,
further submits that the impugned orders are very much reasoned one
and therefore there cannot be any justification on the part of this Court
to interfere with the finding of the learned LA Tribunal. Drawing
attention to the reported decisions of Calcutta Metropoliton
Development Authority vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2005) 2
CLT 14 (High Court) it is contended by Mr. Mukherjee that at the
conclusion of the said reported decision of the Hon'ble High Court it has
been observed thus:-
"13........................................................................................................
(6) in such a case CMDA has two remedies open to i.e. (a) to prefer
appeal under Section 9 of the 1948 Act with leave of the Court or (b)
to involve Article 226 on the principles on which it can be resorted
to."
7. It is thus argued by Mr. Mukherjee that since the Oil Company being the
appellants are not parties in Section 8 proceedings of the LA Act of 1948
before the LA Tribunal, the present appellant/Oil Company is supposed
to obtain leave to file appeal(s) from this Hon'ble Court prior to filing of
these appeals and on account of non-obtaining such leave(s), the instant
appeals have become defective and the same cannot be cured at this
stage and on this score alone, the present appeals may be dismissed.
8. We have meticulously perused the entire materials as placed before us
including the impugned judgements as passed by the learned LA
Tribunal in the aforementioned six nos. of LA Misc. Cases.
9. We have also considered the rival submissions as made by the learned
advocates for the contending parties. We have also perused the different
provisions of law relating to LA Act of 1948 and LA Act of 1894. We have
also meticulously gone through the reported decision as cited from the
Bar. For effective adjudication of the instant appeals some of the relevant
provisions of LA Act of 1948 are required to be looked into and those are
as under:-
"2. Definitions.-................................................................
(b2) the expression "person interested" includes all persons
claiming an interest in compensation to be paid on account of the
requisition or acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall
be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement
affecting the land;
4. Acquisition of land. :- (1) Where any land has been
requisitioned under section 3, the State Government may use or deal
with such land or any of the purposes referred to in sub-section (1)
of section 3 as may appear to it to be expedient.
1(a) The State Government may acquire any land requisitioned
under section 3 by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette that
such land is required for a public purpose referred to in sub-section
(1) of section 3,
(2) Where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official
Gazette, the requisitioned land shall, on and from the beginning of
the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the
State Government free from all encumbrances and the period of
requisition of such land shall end.
5. Notice to persons interested. :- (1) After the publication of a
notice under sub-section 1(a) of section 4, the Collector shall cause
public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land
acquired, stating that the State Government has acquired the land,
and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may
be made to him.
(2) Such public notice shall state the particulars of the land so
acquired, and shall require all persons interested in the land to
appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and
place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen
days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the
nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and
particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests. The
Collector may in any case require such statement to he made in
writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice in the manner
prescribed on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such
persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled
to act for persons to interested, as reside or have agents authorized
to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which
the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and
has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by registered post
in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or
place of business.
7. Compensation :- (1) Wherever any land is acquired under
section 4 there shall be paid to every person interested
compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the
Collector in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out
in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, so far as they may be applicable:
Provided that the market value referred to in clause first of
subsection (1) of section 23 of the said Act shall, in respect of any
land acquired under this Act, be deemed to be the market value of
such land on the (date of publication of the notice referred to in
subsection (1a) of section 4.
(2) (a) When the compensation has been determined under
subsection (1) the Collector shall make an award in accordance with
the principles set out in section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and the amount referred to in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2) of section
23 of that Act shall also be included in the award:
Provided that interest at rate of nine per centum per annum on
the amount of compensation under the award from the date of the
publication of the notice under sub-section 1(a) of section 4 until
payment shall be included in the amount payable under the award.
Provided further that if such compensation or any part thereof
is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date of
publication of the notice under sub-section 1(a) of section 4, interest
at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from
the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of
compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited
before the date of such expiry.
(aa) (i) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and
shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive
evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested in the
land, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector
or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment
of the compensation among the persons interested;
(ii) the Collector shall give in the prescribed manner immediate
notice of his award to such of the persons interested in the land as
are not present personally or by their representatives when the
award is made.
(b) Upon an award being made under clause (a), the Collector
shall proceed to make payment in accordance with the provisions of
sections 31 to 33 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. so far as they
may be applicable.
(3) Where any land is requisitioned under section 3, there
shall be paid to every person interested compensation, in respect of-
(a) the requisition of such land; and
(b) any damage done during the period of requisition to such
land other than what may have been sustained by natural causes.
(4) The principle to be followed in determining compensation
under sub-section (3) shall be as follows, namely:-
(i) where the Collector and the person interested agree as to
the compensation, the Collector shall make an award ordering
payment of the agreed compensation;
(ii) where the person interested cannot be traced or does not
appear before the Collector when called upon to be present for the
purpose of the determination of the compensation, such amount
shall be determined as compensation as appears reasonable to the
(iii) where there is any disagreement between the Collector
and the person interested, the compensation payable shall he the
amount determined by the Court on reference made by the Collector
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8.
8. Reference to Court. :- (1) The Collector shall in every case
(a) where any person interested being aggrieved by an award
made under sub-section (2) of section 7 or clause (ii) of sub-section
(4) of that section] makes an application requiring the matter to he
referred to the Court; or
(b) where there is any disagreement with regard to the
compensation payable under sub-section (3) of section 7 between the
Collector 2[and any person interested in compensation,
refer the matter to the decision of the Court.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18 and of
sections 19 to 22 and of sections 25 to 28A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, and the principles set out in sub-section (1) and in clause
(a) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of this Act, shall, so far as they
may be applicable , apply in respect of any reference made to the
Court under sun-section (1).
Explanation.- The notice given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (aa) o f
sub-section (2) of section 7 shall be deemed to be the notice under
subsection (2) of section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
purposes of the proviso to section. 18 thereof.
10. On perusal of Section 2 (b2) of the LA Act of 1948 it reveals to us that
admittedly the present appellant/Oil Company comes under the purview of
person interested since they being the requiring body shall have to pay the
compensation on account of acquisition of land of the land loosers being the
respondents herein since those lands were acquired by the State as per their
requisition. Section 5 of the LA Act of 1948 requires notice to person interested
and Section 5 of the said Act of 1948 clearly deals with as to how and where
public notice is to be caused. Before us it has not been contended by the Oil
Company/appellant that no notice under Section 5 was issued by the LA
Collector and thus it can be safely presumed that inspite of causing public
notice the present appellant/Oil Company has failed and neglected to raise its
objection before the LA Collector prior to the assessment of the compensation
in course of determination of compensation Section 7 of the said Act of 1948.
11. Since in Section 8(2) of the LA Act of 1948 it has been mandated that the
provisions of Section 18(2) and provisions of Section 19 to Section 22 of the LA
Act of 1894 shall so far as they may be applicable, apply in respect of any
reference made under Section 8(1) of the LA Act of 1948, Sections 18 and 20 of
the LA Act of 1894 is required to be looked into.
12. Section 18 of the LA Act of 1894 reads thus:-
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written
application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to
whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the
persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award
is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector
at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of
the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the
date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
13. Section 20 of the LA Act of 1894 reads thus :
20 Service of notice. The Court shall thereupon cause a notice
specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the
objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that
day, to be served on the following persons, namely:
(a) the applicant;
(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them
as have consented without protest to receive payment of the
compensation awarded; and
(c) in the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the
amount of compensation, the Collector. "
14. On perusal of Sections 18 and 20 of the LA Act of 1894 it reveals to us
that if the objection is with regard to the area of the land or to the amount of
the compensation as assessed by the Collector (as involved in the
aforementioned Misc. Cases) the Tribunal shall cause notice upon the Collector
only. Since in the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases the objection was raised by
the respondents with regard to the amount of the compensation, Section 8 of
the 1948 Act read with Sections 18 and 20 of the LA Act of 1894 clearly bar
service of notice upon any other persons except the Collector and thus the
present appellant/Oil Company being the requiring body are not entitled to any
notice of the aforementioned LA Misc. Cases as disposed of by the learned LA
Tribunal.
15. In considered view of this Court the cited decisions from the appellants
are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances as involved in the
instant appeals since those reported decisions are the outcome of the
proceedings of the LA Act of 1894.
16. On perusal of the impugned judgements as passed in the aforementioned
LA Misc. Cases it appears to this Court that the learned tribunal in the
aforesaid impugned judgements has rightly placed his reliance upon the
Exhibit nos. 1 and 2 for assessing the compensation of the acquired land since
exhibit nos. 1 and 2 of the aforesaid LA Misc. Cases are the certified copy of the
registered deeds of conveyance pertaining to the lands either in the vicinity or
in the nearby area of the acquired land wherefrom the learned LA Tribunal got
a clear picture with regard to the valuation of the land as prevailing on the day
of acquisition.
17. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee that in all the aforementioned
appeals the stamp reporter of this High Court has clearly mentioned that the
names of the present appellants in the memos of appeal do not find place as a
party in the certified copy of the order appealed against and thus the learned
Advocate was requested to take steps. Inspite of such report no endeavour was
taken by the present appellant/Oil Company to take leave of this Court to file
the instant appeals prior to proceeding with the instant appeals which the
present appellant is bound to take in view of the reported decision of Calcutta
Metropolitan Development Authority (supra).
18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we thus find no merit in the
instant appeals and accordingly the instant appeals are hereby dismissed.
19. Consequently the judgement and decree dated 28.08.2002 as passed by
Learned LA Tribunal, Howrah in LA Misc. Case no.28/2001 (Md. Sayeedul
Islam Mir vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dated
24.06.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.34/2001 (Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir
vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and decree dated 23.08.2002 as
passed in LA Misc. Case no. 27/2001 (Gopi Nath Das vs. The State of West
Bengal); the judgement and decree dated 22.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc.
Case no.26/2001 (Sk. Masihur Rahaman vs. The State of West Bengal); the
judgement and decreed dated 29.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case
no.32/2001(Gopi Nath Das vs. The State of West Bengal); the judgement and
decree dated 28.08.2002 as passed in LA Misc. Case no.33/2001 (Nasira
Khatoon vs. State of West Bengal) as passed by learned Judge, LA Tribunal,
Howrah are hereby affirmed.
20. In view of the dismissal of the instant appeals, liberty is given to the
appellants of the instant appeals to withdraw the balance deposited amount
together with interest from the office of the Learned Registrar General, High
Court at Calcutta which was directed to be deposited by the present appellants
vide order dated 15.09.2005 as passed in this appeal.
21. Department is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Learned
Registrar General forthwith.
22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given
to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
I agree.
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
