Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court Single Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee has issued an order directing the expeditious resolution of a prolonged legal dispute concerning compensation for structural damage allegedly caused by Metro Railway construction activities. The court set aside the decision of the appellate authority that had remanded the matter to the competent authority and directed the appellate authority to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe based on the existing records.

The matter originates from a dispute concerning damages allegedly inflicted upon the petitioner’s building due to Metro Railway’s construction activities in 1987. Following a joint inspection on April 12, 1988, the petitioner appointed an independent engineer in 1991 to assess the damage. This engineer's report, dated April 20, 1992, estimated the damages at Rs. 35,35,000/-. The petitioner subsequently initiated Claim Case No. 8 of 1993 before the competent authority.

Upon adjudication, the competent authority issued an order on April 23, 2003, awarding compensation of Rs. 5,47,002/-. Dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed the decision (Claim Appeal No. 3 of 2003). The appellate authority remanded the matter back to the competent authority on June 30, 2003, for fresh adjudication, allowing both parties to adduce further evidence.

In 2003, the petitioner engaged another engineer, A.K. Dey, to reassess the damage, who estimated repair costs at Rs. 72,16,000/-. A subsequent valuation report by another engineer, P.K. Choudhury, submitted on August 16, 2007, also detailed the extent of damage and necessary repairs. Based on these reports, the competent authority, in its August 30, 2007 judgment, awarded Rs. 9,50,314/- as compensation along with Rs. 5,00,000/- for repair costs.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the awarded amount, filed another appeal (Claim Appeal No. 17 of 2007). The appellate authority, in its March 20, 2008 order, again remanded the matter to the competent authority, directing the examination and cross-examination of A.K. Dey regarding his 2003 report.

Following this remand, the competent authority, after examining A.K. Dey and considering his testimony, passed a fresh judgment on November 29, 2016, awarding Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation. This prompted an appeal by Metro Railway (Claim Appeal No. 4 of 2017), while the petitioner filed a cross-objection seeking an increase in compensation.

On January 21, 2020, the appellate authority once again remanded the matter, instructing that A.K. Dey be recalled and the original copy of his report be identified and admitted into evidence. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the matter had already been delayed extensively and that the report had been previously marked as evidence during the prior proceedings.

The court took note of the petitioner’s prolonged legal battle and examined whether the admission of a copy of A.K. Dey’s report, instead of the original, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court observed:

 “It is not in dispute in the present context that in terms of the earlier remand order dated 30th August 2007, the valuer, Mr. A.K. Dey, was extensively cross-examined by the Metro Railway. Mr. Dey, while facing the dock, has not disputed the genuineness of the report which was annexed with the report of P.K. Choudhury.”

The court further noted that during arguments before the competent authority, Metro Railway had contended that only a copy of the report was produced. However, the competent authority, while adjudicating the claim, had relied upon the report based on the extensive cross-examination of A.K. Dey and had observed:

“When the maker of the document in dock admitted the document that he prepared the same, and he was cross-examined by the opponent on that point, then only non-producing the original cannot work out the contents of said document.”

The court concluded that the appellate authority had unnecessarily remanded the matter again, thereby prolonging the dispute and compelling the petitioner to continue litigation for over three decades.

“This approach taken by the Appellate Authority below is clearly an attempt to push the buck from one authority to another, to shift responsibility, and this sort of lackadaisical approach has resulted in the petitioner herein to run from pillar to post for the last 30 years without having any fault of his own.”

Setting aside the appellate authority’s decision, the court directed that:

“The impugned judgment dated 21st January 2020 passed in Acquisition Claim Appeal No. 4 of 2017 is hereby set aside.”

The appellate authority was further directed:

“The Appellate Authority below is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal and the cross-objection on merit, after giving an opportunity to both parties to be heard further, if required, and also on the basis of documents available in the record, within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order, without being influenced by any observation made herein.”

Case Title: Hemendra Mullick Vs. Metro Railway, Kolkata
Case Number: C.O. 75 of 2021
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]