IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2608 OF 2001

Mannulal Fomra (Dead) by L.Rs.      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of West Bengal and Anr.      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  order  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court

whereby the first appeal preferred by the respondents and cross-objections filed by

the appellants in the matter of award of compensation, rental and interest in lieu of

requisition and acquisition of the appellants’ property were dismissed.

The appellants owned property bearing Nos. 83 and 84, Acharya Jagdish

Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta.  Pursuant to notification dated 23.4.1976 issued under

Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 [for

short  “the  Act”],  possession  of  premises  bearing  no.83  and  a  portion  of  premises

bearing no. 84 was taken by Calcutta State Transport Corporation for establishment

of  a  sub-depot.   After  fourteen  years,  the  premises  were  acquired  by  the  State

Government vide notification dated 7.4.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.  By

an award dated 19.6.1990, the Land Acquisition Collector  assessed the  market value

of the

...2/-

- 2 -  

land @ Rs.72,416/- per cottah.  On a reference made at the instance of the appellants,

the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore vide his order dated 22.2.1994 assessed

the market value of the land @ Rs.2,68,990/- per cottah.  He also assessed the value of

the structure at Rs.3,01,924/-.   

The  State  Government  challenged the  award  of  the  reference  court  by

filing  an appeal  which  was  registered as First  Appeal  No.151 of  1995.   On being

noticed by the High Court,  the appellants filed cross-objections which came to be

registered as C.O.T. No. 1423 of 1995.

By  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  first  appeal  by

recording a finding that the determination of market value made by the reference

court was legally correct and justified.  Simultaneously, the cross-objections filed by

the appellants were also dismissed but without assigning any reason whatsoever.

In our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on the

ground that the cross-objections filed by the appellants were dismissed by the High

Court without recording any reason.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside insofar as it

relates  to  dismissal  of  the  cross-objections  of  the  appellants  and  the  matter  is

remanded  to  the  High  Court  for  disposal  of  the  cross-objections  on  merits  in

accordance with law after giving opportunities of hearing to the parties.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 25, 2009.