Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal vs Subhash Ray Chowdhury on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
&
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
FAT No. 605 of 2019
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2023
+
CAN 8 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Subhash Ray Chowdhury
With
FAT No. 606 of 2019
+
CAN 5 of 2023
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Jagari Banerjee
2
With
FAT No. 608 of 2019
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2023
+
CAN 8 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Kajal Roy Chowdhury
With
FAT No. 609 of 2019
+
CAN 5 of 2023
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Prabhat Roy Chowdhury
With
FAT No. 610 of 2019
+
CAN 7 of 2023
+
CAN 8 of 2023
+
CAN 9 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Bimal Kumar Ghosh and others
(Gouri Bala Ghosh since deceased)
With
3
FAT No. 615 of 2019
+
CAN 5 of 2023
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Sabera Khatun and others
With
FAT No. 617 of 2019
+
CAN 7 of 2023
+
CAN 8 of 2023
+
CAN 9 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Manika Bhattacharya
With
FAT No. 618 of 2019
+
CAN 5 of 2023
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
CAN 7 of 2024
+
CAN 8 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Ranajit Kumar Mukherjee
With
FAT No. 619 of 2019
+
CAN 6 of 2023
+
4
CAN 7 of 2023
+
CAN 8 of 2024
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Sunirmal Sengupta and another
For the appellant/State : Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder
For the respondents : Mr. Debayan Bera
Mr. Sakti Prasad Chakraborty
Heard on : May 1, 2025.
Judgment on : May 1, 2025.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. The present set of appeals has been preferred by the State of
West Bengal against awards of enhancement of compensation
on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 arising out the same notification as well as the same
process of acquisition.
5
2. Learned counsel for the State, at the outset, points out that the
learned Trial Judge passed the impugned judgments in all the
matters on the basis of no admissible evidence at all, since no
document was exhibited by either of the parties in the court
below.
3. Learned counsel submits that although the certified copies of
three judgments were produced in the court below, those
documents were not formally proved by way of evidence, nor
marked as exhibits. As such, it is contended that the impugned
judgments and decrees in all the appeals are vitiated by
contravention of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (n short, “1872 Act”) as well as the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Code”), insofar as the
judgments are based on no evidence at all.
4. Under similar circumstances, it is contended that when certain
documents were sought to be relied on in connection with a
different land acquisition case by one of the parties, a
coordinate Bench of this court had remanded the matter and
directed the parties to adduce evidence. Such unreported
judgment dated April 13, 2023 passed in FA 47 of 2005, which
is cited before us, recorded that it appeared that documents
6
relied on by both the parties were marked as exhibits by
dispensing formal proof thereof. The parties did not adduce
any evidence. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench
observed that it felt that the matter was required to be heard
on the evidence and accordingly, set aside the impugned
judgment and directed the learned Trial Judge to hear the
matter afresh, granting the parties liberty to adduce evidence,
both oral and documentary, in the form of affidavit of evidence
by both the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the State also relies on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State
of Jharkhand reported at 2022 (2) Indian Civil Cases 746 (SC)
in support of the proposition that allowing an application filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code does not lead to the
result that the additional documents/additional evidence can
be straightaway exhibited; rather, the applicants would have to
not only to prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness
of the said documents, but also the contents thereof, in
accordance with law.
6. It is submitted by the State that in the present cases, the
referring claimants, being the respondents, have filed
7
applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby seeking to produce as additional evidence
the certified copies relied on by the learned Trial Judge. Even
if such documents are permitted to be adduced as additional
evidence, it is submitted by the State that the matter has to be
remanded to the trial court and evidence has to be led formally
to prove the said documents.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the referring
claimants/respondents submits that the respondents have
preferred separate applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for abundant caution, seeking to
produce the said certified copies. However, at the same time,
it is pointed out that the certified copies of the judgments-in-
question were produced in connection with one of the matters
in the court below and since the matters were heard
analogously, such production sufficed for the purpose of the
court to deal with the said documents and rely on the same
with regard to all the cases.
8. It is further reiterated that since all the proceedings arise out of
the self-same acquisition procedure as well as the same
notification, the judgments governing the previous
8
compensation cases, which was at the instance of a company,
which was also one of the referring claimants, should govern
the present cases as well.
9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that, in
the present case, the learned Trial Judge placed reliance on
certain judgments. It was recorded by the learned trial Judge
that all the referring claimants in the instant cases filed a
judgment dated November 18, 2016 passed by this Court in
connection with LRA 18 of 2002 (V), in FA 65 of 2014 filed by
the judgment-debtor/State, as well as cross appeals filed by
the referring claimants.
10. The court further recorded that being aggrieved by the
judgment passed by this Court, the judgment-debtor/State had
preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was
ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, and as such, the
judgment delivered by the High Court attained finality. It was
further recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the said
judgment passed by this Court and finally affirmed by the
Supreme Court was in respect of the self-same notification,
the same project, the same Mouza as well as the same award
involved in Collector’s Case No. LA 11/50 of 1988-89.
9
11. Having recorded so, the learned Trial Judge referred to the
certified copies of the said judgment of this Court. In the
judgment passed by the High Court in FA 65 of 2014, which
arose out of the self-same notification and acquisition process,
the Court clearly delineated the parameters on which the
valuation was to be assessed and also passed necessary
directions to the following effect:
“1. The valuation of solid lands are hereby fixed at
Rs.1,00,406/= per cottah.
2. The valuation of tank and doba are fixed at
Rs.50,203/= per cottah.
3. The referring claimants/cross objectors are entitled
to get solatium @ 30% on the entire market value.
4. The referring claimants/cross objectors are entitled
to get Additional Compensation @ 12% per annum on
the entire market value from the date of possession
(12.04.1989) to the date of the award (17.09.2001).
5. The referring claimants/cross objectors are entitled
to get interest on the entire compensation @ 9% per
annum for one year from 17.09.2001 and thereafter @
15% per annum on the entire compensation”.
10
12. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Judge relied on the
judgment of this Court passed in FA 65 of 2014, which was
affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated December 13,
2017, where the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that
no ground of interference was made out in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and
accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against
the judgment of this Court.
13. The State now alleges that in view of the certified copies of
this Court and the Supreme Court having not been formally
proved, the learned Trial Judge acted without jurisdiction in
relying on the same.
14. However, it is well-settled that procedure is the handmaid of
justice. The courts have to distinguish between certain
procedural norms which are set in stone and cannot be
deviated from, since those hit at the root of the matter and
those which are, although procedural in nature, directory in
their form and content.
15. Certified copies of public documents under Section 63 of
the 1872 Act include certified copies given under the
provisions thereinafter contained.
11
16. Section 64 of the 1872 Act enumerates cases in which
secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.
17. Furthermore, Section 42 of the 1872 Act provides that
judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in
Section 41 are relevant if they relate to matters of public
nature relevant to the enquiry; however, such judgments,
orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of what they state.
18. In the present cases, the question is as to the judgment
passed by the High Court on the previous occasion in
connection with the self-same notification and acquisition
process was relevant or not. Since the said judgment not only
relates to matters of public nature but is also directly relevant
to the present enquiry, we are of the opinion that the
production of the certified copy of the said judgment was
sufficient compliance of the provision of the 1872 Act for the
learned Trial Court to look into such certified copies.
19. It is trite law that if several matters are taken up
analogously and evidence is also adduced in a composite
manner, the production of evidence in one of those matters
tantamounts to production of the same in all the matters.
12
20. Thus, the rigours of the ratio laid down in Sanjay Kumar
(Supra) are not applicable in the present case. In fact, we
hereby find that the applications filed by the respective
respondents in the present appeals under Order XLI Rule 27
of the Code are redundant since the certified copies of the
relevant judgments were already before the learned Trial
Judge when the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned
judgments and decrees.
21. Thus, there is no further necessity to permit production of
the self-same certified copies by way of additional evidence in
the present appeals.
22. Insofar as the unreported co-ordinate Bench judgment cited
by learned counsel for the State/appellant is concerned, in the
said matter, it is not recorded anywhere that certified copies of
the judgments comprised of the evidence which was produced
in those cases.
23. Rather, it transpires that the relevant documents were
comparable instruments and sale deeds.
24. Thus, the facts of the said cited case are diametrically
opposite to the present.
13
25. In the event sale deeds were sought to be produced for the
first time before this Court and were not exhibited in the Trial
Court, it would undoubtedly provide an occasion for this Court
to consider whether the deeds could be directed to be
produced as additional evidence, in which case we would look
at a remand scenario.
26. However, as opposed to the same, the material
adjudication had already been made by this Court in FA 65 of
2014 in respect of the self-same notification and acquisition
process.
27. What remained for the learned trial Judge to look into was
only the certified copy of the said judgment, which was
affirmed up to the Supreme Court, and merely to reproduce
the salient features of the same in his judgment, since the
notification and acquisition process as well as the project for
which acquisition was made were the same in the said
judgment and the present cases and this court had already
conclusively determined all the parameters of enhancement of
compensation in the previous appeal. The learned Trial Judge
precisely did so and, as such, we do not find any occasion to
find fault in or interfere with the same.
14
28. Accordingly, FAT 605 of 2019, FAT 606 of 2019, FAT 608
of 2019, FAT 609 of 2019, FAT 610 of 2019, FAT 615 of 2019,
FAT 617 of 2019, FAT 618 of 2019 and FAT 619 of 2019 are
dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, thereby
affirming the judgments and awards impugned in each of
those.
29. Consequentially, all the connected applications filed in
connection with the aforementioned appeals stand disposed of
as well.
30. Deposits made by the State/appellant in connection with
each of the appeals with the learned Registrar General, along
with interest accrued thereon, shall be disbursed in favour of
the respective claimants/respondents in each of the appeals,
as and when so approached, after deduction of the statutory
dues.
31. In the event even after such disbursal there is still some
balance awarded amount remaining unpaid, it will be open to
the claimants/respondent to levy execution in the court below
and/or to proceed with their existing execution cases, if
pending, in order to realize such balance amount.
15
32. Formal decrees be drawn up accordingly in each of the
appeals.
33. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for,
be supplied to the parties at an early date.
I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link