JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALA, J.- Substitution of Calcutta Improvement Trust by Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority sought for in the IAs, is granted. Transposition of State of West Bengal, as Appellant 2, sought for in the petition is also granted.

2. Calcutta Improvement Trust before its merger with Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority - Appellant 1, required the entire land comprised in Dag Nos. 1247, 1248, 1249 and 1250 of Mouza Bondel and Dag Nos. 1304 and 1308 of Mouza Kasba, which was a portion of Premises No. 42, Bedia Danga 2nd Lane, P.S. Kasba/Jadavpur, Calcutta for the purpose of Calcutta Improvement Trust General Improvement Scheme No. III. State of West Bengal - Appellant 2 proposed to acquire the said land as required by Appellant 1 by issuance of a notification under Section 43 of Calcutta Improvement Act corresponding to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - the LA Act, published in Calcutta Gazette dated 2-11-1978. Subsequently, when Appellant 2 made a declaration, as required by Section 6 of the LA Act, the acquisition of the said land was completed. Thereafter, the First Land Acquisition Collector of Calcutta who is representing Appellant 2 - the Collector, served notices on the owner of the said acquired land, M/s Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. - Respondent 1, as required by Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act and invited from it a claim statement for compensation payable for its acquired land. A claim statement was accordingly filed by Respondent 1, before the Collector, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs 16,000 per cottah of solid land, at the rate of Rs 12,000 per cottah of marshy land, Rs 50,000 for a boundary wall and Rs 700 for trees and further statutory allowance at 15 per cent on such compensation. However, in that claim statement a mention was made of the entitlement of Shri Kalidas Chakraborty - Respondent 2, to a portion of compensation to be awarded for the acquired land, because of an agreement to sell dated 3-9-1975 which had been entered into between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 to sell the acquired land. No doubt, Respondent 2 filed a separate claim statement before the Collector respecting the compensation payable to him for the acquired land. But, that claim statement did not differ in material particulars from the claim statement which had been filed by Respondent 1.

3. On an inquiry held by the Collector in respect of the said claim statements, as required by Section 11 of the LA Act, he found the exact extent of the acquired land to be 8 bighas, 9 cottahs and 4 chittacks and determined the compensation payable therefor as Rs 6,33,164.25 worked out at the rate of Rs 3741 per cottah, and apportioned that compensation between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2, respectively, as Rs 4,95,316.43 paise and as Rs 1,37,847.82 paise. An award dated 5-2-1981 was also made by him accordingly.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 who were not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them under the said award of the Collector on their applications made under Section 18 of the LA Act, got their applications referred to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal - "the Tribunal", for determination of the just compensation payable for their acquired lands. Those applications being registered by the Tribunal as Case No. 23/81, an inquiry was held thereon after issue of notices to the Collector, Respondents 1 and 2 but not to Appellant 1 for the benefit of which the land concerned was acquired and which had to pay the amount of compensation payable for that land under the LA Act. On the conclusion of such inquiry the Tribunal made a common award dated 21-5-1986, the operative portion of which read thus:

"That the reference succeed in part with costs. The award for value of land is enhanced to Rs 7,11,865.50p, the increased amount in this regard being Rs 78,701.25p. The referring claimant shall get the sum of Rs 15,000 as value of the retaining wall. The enhanced value of land, the said value of the retaining wal