Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Cesc Limited vs Abhaya Rani Barick & Ors on 12 June, 2019
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
1
733 12.06.2019
CL
pg
F.A. 13 of 2002
With
C.A.N. 7104 of 2014
With
F.A. 11 of 2002
With
F.A. 12 of 2002
CESC Limited
Vs.
Abhaya Rani Barick & Ors.
Mr. Somnath Bose..............for the appellant
Mr. Chanchal Kr. Dutt
Ms. Krishna Mullick....for the respondents-applicants
F.A. 13 of 2002 was presented by CESC Limited before this Court wherein decree dated September 07, 2001 passed by the 4th Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore in L.R.A. Case No. 105 of 1997 (V) was under challenge. In such appeal, the respondents were Abhaya Rani Barick, Sundar Nath Barick, Subratha Nath Barick, Sudarshan Barick, Sarbajit Barick, Sulakshana Pal Chowdhury, Sujata Dutta and the State. The said appeal was heard alongwith F.A. 11 of 2002 and F.A. 12 of 2002 by a coordinate Bench. By a common judgment and order delivered on February 11, 14 and 17, 2003, the three appeals were disposed of in the manner indicated therein.
It is noted that the market price of the land acquired was determined at Rs. 2.25 lakh per cottah and the respondents were held entitled to solatium @ 30% on the land value as well as additional compensation, rent compensation, interest etc. The said judgment and order was carried in 2 appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated July 07, 2008 dismissed the civil appeals presented before it by the CESC Limited.
An interim order was passed by the Supreme Court directing the CESC Limited to deposit such sum with the Registrar General of this Court on the basis of Rs. 2.25 lakh per cottah being the land value, as directed by the coordinate Bench.
It is not disputed before us that in compliance with such direction, CESC Limited duly deposited a sum of Rs. 3,28,06,000/- under challan no. 2819 dated January 18, 2006. It is also not in dispute that after disbursement of Rs. 3,18,71,796.67 in favour of the respondents, the balance sum of Rs. 9,34,203.33p. was invested with the United Bank of India, High Court branch on September 29, 2011. The value of the investment till April 10, 2019 is Rs. 10,23,661.10p. and the amount of interest that has accrued is Rs. 89,457.77p.
We have found the above particulars from the report that has been furnished to us in terms of our order dated March 27, 2019.
The occasion for presenting C.A.N. 7104 of 2014 arose because of the demise of the respondent no. 1, Abhaya Rani Barick on July 01, 2010. The prayer made in C.A.N. 7104 of 2014 is for deletion of the name of Abhaya Rani Barick from the cause title and for release of the amount lying in deposit with the Registrar General (read invested in the United Bank of India) together with 3 interest in favour of the heirs of said Abhaya Rani Barick viz., her three sons Sundar Nath Barick, Subratha Nath Barick and Sarbajit Barick as well as heirs of Abhaya Rani Barick's pre-deceased son Sudarshan i.e., [Mandira (wife), Sumeet (son) and Smita (daughter)].
Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of CESC Limited, on instructions, does not dispute the claims raised in this application. In fact, he has placed before us a settlement deed dated April 19, 2010 executed between CESC Limited on the one hand and the four sons of late Sachindra Nath Barick and late Abhaya Rani Barick. Interestingly, Abhaya Rani Barick was alive on the date this settlement deed was executed.
We find a recital in the deed that during his life time, Sachindra Nath Barick had executed a Will whereby, inter alia, he bequeath the premises in dispute in favour of his four sons and it was also his will that except the said four sons, his wife Abhaya Rani Barick and their two daughters shall not have any claim over and in respect of the benefit of the said property. It also appears that letter of administration in respect of the said Will was duly granted by this Court on October 03, 2001.
If indeed it was the will of late Sachindra Nath Barick that the property in dispute would devolve upon his four sons exclusively and his wife Abhaya Rani Barick and two daughters would have no claim over and in respect thereof, we fail to comprehend as to why the four sons did not object to Abhaya Rani Barick being arrayed as respondent no. 1 in F.A. 13 of 2002 at the material point of time. There is a grey area, which needs to be 4 cleared.
We, accordingly, direct the applicants' learned advocate-on-record to put their sisters on notice together with a website copy of this order.
The application shall be listed once again on July 03, 2019 when we desire representation from the ACO side of the daughters of late Sachindra Nath Barick and late Abhaya Rani Barick.
It is made clear that should the daughters of late Sachindra Nath Barick and late Abhaya Rani Barick choose not to appear before this Court on the next date despite being served with notice and copy of this order, we shall be left with no option but to provide relief, as claimed in this application.
Copy of the settlement deed shall be retained with the records.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) (DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)