Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 450
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Mitra
KALIPADA BAGCHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
S. M. A. 8 Of 1982
Decided On : 07/08/2004
SRILEKHA BHATTACHARJEE, T.N.Rao
The Compensation Officer must prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll himself and cannot rely on the Roll prepared by another Compensation Officer. Beels that are not connected with rivers should be treated as tank fisheries. The returns of agricultural income tax submitted by the ex-intermediary should be considered in computing the annual income of the land.
Headnote:
ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - SECTIONS 15 (4) (B), 24 (1) (B) - COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT ROLL - PREPARATION BY COMPENSATION OFFICER - BEELS AS TANK FISHERIES - ANNUAL INCOME COMPUTATION - AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, executors of the Will of the ex-intermediary Mr. Nolinikanta Adhikari, challenged the judgment and order of the District Judge, Murshidabad, arising out of an objection filed under Section 15 (4) (b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The appellants contended that the draft Compensation Assessment Roll did not include all the vested lands and rent-receiving interests, that 8.24 acres of beel lands were wrongly included as vested lands, that Rule 15 (a) of the Rules framed under the Act was not complied with in computing the annual income of the khas land, and that interest on the compensation amount was not allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Compensation Officer erred in not preparing the Compensation Assessment Roll himself and in relying on the Roll prepared by another Compensation Officer. The court also held that the beels of the petitioner were not connected with rivers and should have been treated as tank fisheries. Further, the court held that the returns of agricultural income tax submitted by the ex-intermediary should have been considered in computing the annual income of the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the Compensation Officer can get the Compensation Assessment Roll prepared by another and publish it finally on the basis of the said preparation with modifications? 2. Whether the beels of the petitioner should have been accepted as tank fisheries? 3. Whether the returns of Agricultural Income Tax should have been considered in computing the annual income of the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Compensation Officer is required to prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll himself under Section 15 (5) of the Act and cannot rely on the Roll prepared by another Compensation Officer. 2. Beels that are not connected with rivers should be treated as tank fisheries as per the explanation to Section 6 (1) (e) of the Act. 3. The returns of agricultural income tax submitted by the ex-intermediary should be considered in computing the annual income of the land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the Compensation Officer and the appellate authority, and directed the Compensation Officer, 'a' Camp, Murshidabad to prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll afresh, considering the observations made by the court and finally publish the Roll within three months.
( 1 ) THIS Second Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 10. 6. 1981 passed in settlement appeal No. 3 of 1980 by the learned District Judge. Murshidabad arising out of decree/order of District Compensation Officer, 'a' Camp, Murshidabad in objection Case No. 448 of 1978 under Estates Acquisition Act.
( 2 ) THE subject matter and/or the background of the case is inter alia as follows : the appellants are the executors of the Will of the ex-intermediary mr. Nolinikanta Adhikari of Balurghat, District-West Dinajpur. The Will was duly probated on 6. 3. 1979 in Probate Case No. 41 of 1974 of the district Judge, West Dinajpur, Balurghat. The said ex-intermediary Mr. Nolinikanta Adhikari had certain Estates comprising tenanted and kahs land both in West Dinajpur and Murshidabad Districts. After promulgation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the said estate vested in the State subject to the write off estates of the said intermediary. Compensation Assessment Rolls were prepared by the respective compensation Officers of West Dinajpur and Murshidabad under provisions of Section 14 of the Estates Acquisition Act and draft compensation Assessment Rolls were duly published on 3. 10. 1978 by the respective Compensation Officers of West Dinajpur and murshidabad. The appellants being aggrieved, filed objection before the Compensation Officer, 'a1 Camp Murshidabad, under Section 15 (4) (b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
( 3 ) THE appellants alleged that the said draft Compensation assessment Roll did not include all the vested lands and the rent receiving interest of the ex-intermediary and that compensation was also assessed in respect of 8. 24 acres of beel lands in Plot Nos. 3341, 1132 and 1896 under khatian Nos. 1585 of Mouza Khairmari which were, according to the appellants tank fisheries and could not vest in the State. It was further alleged by the appellants that Rule 15 (a) of Rules framed under West Bengal Estates acquisition Act was not complied with or valid in computation of the annual income of the khas land and that the Compensation Officer did not take into consideration the returns of agricultural income tax submitted by the ex- intermediary prior to the date of vesting at the time of computation of the annual income of the khas land vested in the state. It was further pleaded that the Compensation Officer did not allow interest on the amount of compensation payable to the ex-intermediary. Lastly, it was alleged that the amount of compensation was fixed not on the basis of the rules and provisions of law but on the basis of some executive directives and instructions overriding the provisions of law which was not permissible.
( 4 ) THE Compensation Officer, 'a' Camp Murshidabad, who heard this objection under the provisions of Section 15 (4) (b) of the Act allowed the objection in part, incorporating certain properties in the Assessment Roll but overruling the other contentions of the appellants as contained in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of his Order under Appeal. The contentions referred to in Paragraph 2 relates to the beel lands as mentioned above whereas the contention in paragraph 3 relates to the computation of annual income on the basis of the assessment made under Agricultural Income Tax Act and the contention in paragraph 4 relates to allowing of interest on the total amount of compensation calculated in the Compensation Assessment Roll. The Compensation Officer in his Order has observed that in the Revisional Record of Rights the beel lands were not recorded as tank fisheries and as such these lands could not be excluded from the Compensation Assessment Roll. He has further observed that the annual income of the vested agricultural lands were determined according to Rule 15 (a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules, after making necessary enquiry as required by the rules and as such there was no scope for comp
