Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ab vs Susama Das And Others on 1 September, 2023
09 01.09. FAT 69 of 2018
2023 IA No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 2745 of 2018)
Ct. No. 04
State of West Bengal
Ab Vs.
Susama Das and others.
---------------
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Suman Ghosh,
Mr. Parikshit Goswami.
... for the appellant.
Mrs. Sulekha Mitra,
Mr. Manas Kumar Das.
... for the respondents.
Re: CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 2745 of 2018)
The instant appeal is filed by the State assailing an
order of the Land Acquisition Court dated 9th August
2016 on various grounds including that the market value
as assessed by the Land Acquisition Court is too
exorbitant and not in consonance with law.
Since a statutory right of first appeal has been
provided and the Court is required to hear out the same,
an application is taken out for stay of operation of the
judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal.
Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant
submits that a substantial amount has already been paid
to the respondents and, therefore, the Court should pass
an order of stay of the operation of the judgment and
order of the Land Acquisition Court pending the instant
appeal.
On the other hand, learned Advocate for the
respondents submits that the Court should not pass a
blanket order of stay because of the nature of the
impugned order and, therefore, the appellant should be
put to terms. It is further submitted that since the appeal
was filed way back in the year 2018 along with an
application for condonation of delay and there being no
order of stay, an execution case has been filed by the
respondents to recover and realize the amount awarded
by the Land Acquisition Court being Land Acquisition
Execution Case No. 10 of 2016.
It is no longer res integra that the judgment and
order passed by the Land Acquisition Court on the basis
of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act is a money decree and, therefore, the
Court should not pass a blanket order of stay unless the
appellant is directed to put a security or put on terms, as
the Court may deem fit and proper.
On the last occasion, we invited the attention of
both the Counsels on such proposition of law and
directed them to file the total amount to be arrived in
terms of the impugned judgment and order. There
appears the variation in the calculation of the amount in
terms of the impugned judgment and order and we find
discrepancy in the calculation submitted by the
appellant. According to the respondents, the total
amount as on 31st July 2023 stands at Rs.
2,31,60,032.05/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 80,32,605/-
has been paid to the respondents. The balance amount is
required to be deposited by the appellant as a condition
precedent for stay of the execution proceeding.
Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.
1,51,27,427.05/- with the Registrar General of this Court
within four weeks from date. On deposit of the said
amount, the Registrar General shall invest the same in
an interest bearing fixed deposit in any nationalized bank
and shall continue to renew the same until further order
passed in the instant appeal.
There shall be an unconditional stay of the Land
Acquisition Execution Case No. 10 of 2016 for a period of
four weeks from date or until further order, whichever is
earlier. In the event, the deposit is made within the time
indicated herein above, the said execution case shall
remain stayed until the disposal of the instant appeal.
In default of the deposit within the time indicated
herein above, it is open to the respondents to proceed
with the execution case and the Executing Court shall
dispose of the same irrespective of the fact that the
appeal is pending before this Court.
With these observations, the application for stay
being CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 2745 of 2018) is
disposed of.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
