Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Two plots of land bearing No. 936 of Mouza Asansol and plot No. 9202 of Monza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 13, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 25th December, 1947. The declaration under s. 6 dated December 30, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 8th January, 1948. For plot No. 936 of Monza Asansol measuring about 31 acres, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1707/- including Rs. 13/ 1/6 on account of the landlord's interest. The entire compensation in respect of this plot was directed to be paid to Bhaktabala, Dasi, the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1967. In respect of plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded as compensation a sum of Rs. 825/15/6 including Rs. 6/5/6 on account of the landlord's interest. This entire amount of compensation was directed to be paid to Bhaktabala Dasi and her sister Subasini Dasi. It may be mentioned that Bhaktabala Dasi is the first respondent and on the death of Subasini Dasi, her son Sunil Kumar Roy, who has been impleaded in the proceedings is the second respondent in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1967. Before the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of both these plots, one Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the land and as such to the entire compensation amount.' The appellants in these two appeals are the legal representatives of Kashi Nath Dawn.

The case of Bhaktabala Dasi, who alone contested the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn was briefly as follows : Panchanan Roy had no title to the properties and that on the other hand they belonged to Ramanugraha Roy, who died leaving his widow. Manmohini and three daughters, Santabala, Subasini and Bhaktabala. On the death of Ramanugrah a Roy, his widow Manmohini succeeded to the property as life estate holder. As Santabala died shortly after her father's death, the properties devolved on the other two sisters namely, Subasini and Bhaktabala, on the death of Marnmohini Panchanan Roy had married Santabala and on her death he married her sister Subasini. Panchanan Roy during the life time of his mother-in-law Manmohini was allowed to manage the properties. In the settlement proceedings of 1918-21 he surreptitiously got his name recorded as owner of one half share in the ,estate of his father-in-law in Monza Asansol and of the entire interest in Monza Asansol Municipality. Panchanan Roy was never in possession and enjoyment of the properties whereas Manmohini Dasi during her life time and on her death her 'daughter Subasini and Bhaktabala were in possession and enjoyment. There was a partition between the two sisters of Monza Asansol property and in consequence plot No. 936 of Monza Asansol was obtained as her share by Bhaktabala Dasi. It was on this basis that Bhaktabala Dasi claimed exclusive title to plot No. 936 and the right to receive the entire compensation amount for that land. She claimed that in respect of plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, she and her sister Subasini Dasi, had a title to half share each and asserted the right to receive com- pensation on that basis.

In view of the dispute regarding right to receive the compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Additional District Judge, Burdwan for determination of the said dispute. The stand taken before the Land Acquisition Collector was reiterated before the learned Additional District Judge. With. reference to plot No. 936 of Monza Asansol, the learned Additional District Judge held that Panchanan Roy had wrongfully and fraudulently got recorded his name as owner of the half share when he was managing the property on behalf of his mother-in-law Manmohini widow of Ramanugraha Roy. The Court further held that Panchanan Roy was never in possession and enjoyment of both the plots in question. Regarding plot No 9202 of Monza Asansol Municipality, it was held that long before the sale in Execution Case No. 120 of 1929, the Katiyans and the maps had been published and they conclusively show that Monza Asansol Municipality was a Monza different from Monza Asansol with different J.L. number. The sale certificate Ex. 2 under which Kasbi Nath Dawn claimed title was scrutinized by the Court which held that the description of the various items clearly showed that no land of Monza Asansol Municipality was included therein. The Court did not also I accept the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn that for the purpose of C. S. operation only the lands within Mouza Asansol Municipality were separately recorded and that they were also included within Monza Asansol. In this view the learned Additional District Judge held that Kashi Nath Dawn did not purchase in the court sale any plot of land within Monza Asansol Municipality and as such he had no title to plot No. 9202. The court accepted the plea of Bhaktabala Dasi that she and her sister Subasini Dasi were entitled to the compensation amount in equal shares. Finally the Additional District Judge held that Kashi Nath Dawn was not entitled to claim any portion of the compensation amount in respect of the two plots. Kashi Nath Dawn filed two appeals before the Calcutta High ,Court, being First Appeals Nos. 311 and 312 of 1956. As the Land Acquisition Collector had made separate references in respect of each of the plots and as the two references were disposed of separately, though by a common judgment, two appeals were filed in the High Court. The First Appeal No. 311 of 1956 related to plot No. 936 and First Appeal No. 312 of 1956 related to plot No. 9202. At this stage it may be mentioned that Civil Appeals No. 436 and 437 of 1967 against the decision of the High Court in First Appeals Nos. 311 and 312 of 1956 respectively. The High Court did not

Coming to plot No. 9202 of Monza Asansol Municipality Mr. D. N. Mukherjee raised two contentions : (i) the High Court was in error in holding that Ex. 2, the sale certificate does not take in this item and (ii) the claim of the respondent was barred by res judicate, by the decree of the Land Acquisition Court Ex. 7 and the High Court was again in error in holding that there is no bar of res-judicata. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is an attack on a finding of fact recorded by the High Court. We have already pointed out that even the Land Acquisition Court held that Kashi Nath Dawn did not purchase in the court sale any property of Panchanan Roy in Mouza Asansol Municipality. The High Court has agreed with this finding. The entire claim of title in respect of both the items was based on the sale certificate Ex. 2. Both the District Judge and the High Court have held that what was sold in court sale was only the interest of Panchanan Roy in the permanent tenure in respect of Mouza Asansol and not in respect of any other Mouza. The High Court has further held that Mouza Asansol Municipality and Mouza Asansol were different entities even from about 1896 and the court sale which took place in or about 1930 related only to the properties in Mouza Asansol. The description of the properties given in the sale certificate Ex. 2, according to the High Court, clearly establishes that what was sold in court auction and purchased by Kashi Nath Dawn was only the property that was situated in Mouza Asansol as defined by the District Settlement Operations and not a different Mouza Asansol as it might have existed prior to 1896. The High Court has