HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Renupada Mukherjee
PROVINCE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
RAJA OF JHARGRAM - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 172 Of 1948
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 06, 1954
COMPENSATION - REQUISITION - FOREST - REINSTATEMENT - PRINCIPLE OF REINSTATEMENT - APPLICABILITY - CONDITIONS - MARKET VALUE - INCOME BASIS - DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
During the last War portions of two khas Jungles known as Bandhi Jungle and Chua Jungle belonging to the Raja of Jhargram were requisitioned under Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules for the Jhargram Air-field. The properly remained under requisition from 15-5-1944 to 3-5-1945 when it was derequisitioned. On such derequisition it transpired that during the period of occupation Government had removed standing trees from a large portion of area.
Finding of the Court:
The principle of reinstatement is only applicable where land for reinstatement is available or can be obtained on reasonable terms. The matter in which the calculation for costs for afforestation can be done and the long period over which steps are required to be taken to bring back if it is possible at all to the conditions in which the forest was at the time of requisition make it abundantly clear that the terms and conditions under which reinstatement would have to be allowed would be not only in terms wholly unreasonable but would be a speculative one and merely a wishful thinking.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of reinstatement can be applied in assessing compensation for damages done to a Forest during requisition? 2. On what basis compensation is to be assessed for the period of requisition? 3. How is compensation for damages inflicted during the period of requisition to be ascertained?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of reinstatement may be applied in assessing compensation for damages done to a Forest during requisition, but only if: a) The income derived from the premises acquired would not in the special circumstances of the case constitute a fair basis in assessing the value to the owner. b) This is because of the special character of the use to which the premises had been put to at the time of the acquisition. c) It is the nature of the business which is to be displaced requires the first consideration. d) Secondly there must be a bona fide intention to be reinstated and thirdly the costs of reinstatement are not unreasonably abnormal or have no relation to the market value of the property under acquisition. 2. For the period of requisition, compensation is to be assessed on the basis of the fair rental value of the property. 3. Compensation for damages inflicted during the period of requisition is to be assessed by determining the extent to which the income from the forest has been affected by the depredation multiplied by a certain number of years.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the learned arbitrator are set aside and it be declared that the claimant is entitled to: 1. Compensation for the fuel trees removed - Rs. 19,291/- 2. Compensation for the removal of mother sal trees etc. - Rs. 11,684/- 3. Compensation for the loss of income for 20 years including the year during which the property was under requisition at the rate as fixed by the learned arbitrator, compensating there-by damages for the trees cut or up-rooted - Rs. 1,47,600/-
( 1 ) THE principal question for decision in the present appeal is whether the principle of reinstatement -would be attracted in. assessing the compensation payable for damages done to a Forest during requisition.
( 2 ) DURING the last War portions of two khas Jungles known as Bandhi Jungle and Chua Jungle belonging to the Raja of Jhargram were requisitioned under Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules for the Jhargram Air-field. The properly remained under requisition from 15-5-1944 to 3-5-1945 when it was derequisitioned. On such derequisition it transpired that during the period of occupation Government had removed standing trees from a large portion of area. Correspondence ensued and the District Magistrate of Midnapore offered by his letter dared 31-1-1946 a total compensation for Rs. 1,21,449/2/ -. One year later by a letter dated 12-2-1947 the District Magistrate modified the offer and reduced the same to Rs. 38,377/1/ -. It was stated that out of the amount offered Rs. 1,968/12/- had already been paid for trees-cutting in the year 1944. On behalf of the claimant the offer was not accepted. Accordingly under Section 19 (1), Defence of India Act, 1939 (35 of 1939) the question of compensation was referred to an arbitrator.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the claimant Rs. 4,55,438/14/-was claimed as compensation. It will be necessary hereafter to give further details as to the different heads under which the claimant had preferred his claim.
( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the total area requisitioned was 362. 82 acres. During the period of requisition trees standing on 257. 31 acres had been uprooted and on the remaining area of 105. 51 acres some of the trees had been cut down.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the claimant it was contended that the damage that had been done to the forest was such that steps would have to be taken for new afforestation. It would lake about 25 years for the new forest to grow and the loss of income during that period should be compensated. The compensation for the trees that had been removed but which would not ordinarily be removed from a forest would also have to be paid for. A separate claim was made for one outturn of the fuel plants.
( 6 ) EVIDENCE was adduced by both the parties before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator had allowed Rs. 3,28,325/14/- as compensation, following practically the scheme as put forward on behalf of the claimant, though the amounts claimed were not the entire claim as made by him.
( 7 ) THE State of West Bengal has come up on appeal. It was contended in the lower court and repeated in this Court also on behalf of the appellant that the proper compensation was Rs. 38000 and odd as had been offered by the District Magistrate of Midnapore in February, 1947.
( 8 ) WE may state at the very outset that both the parties/as also the Arbitrator had not proceeded on proper lines in assessing the compensation.
( 9 ) WHEN a property is compulsorily acquired the compensation payable is the market value pf the property acquired together with such claims a may be admissible for costs of removal, severance etc. If a property is requisitioned for a certain period, the requisitioning authority is bound to pay such compensation as may be deemed reasonable for the period of requisition. If at the time of derequisition it is found that there had been damages inflicted during the period of requisition and the property returned is not in the same condition as it was when requisitioned, Government is liable for what is technically known as terminal damages.
( 10 ) 'province of Bengal v. Board of Trustees for Improvement, Calcutta', AIR 1946 Cal 416 (A) has laid down on what basis compensation is to be assessed for the period of requisition. The requisitioning authority gets possession from the owner and becomes so to say a statutory tenant. The basis of compensation is the amount of fair rent. Find out, if possible what a plot of land with similar advantages and disadvantages
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.