2003 Supreme(SC) 1164

2003(8) Supreme 418
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Smt. Lila Ghosh (Dead) through Lr. Shri Tapas Chandra Roy -Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7096 of 2000
With
C.A. Nos. 7097-7098 of 2000
Decided on 18-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Sunil Gupta, Harish N. Salve, Bhakskar P. Gupta, Sr. Advocates, Bijan Ghosh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Vivek Saigal, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Prateek Jalan, Ranjan Mukherjee, B.P. Nirbhay, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a compact block of land is acquired the belting method would not be the correct method for determination of the compensation claim.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6, 23, 28 and 34-Acquisition of premises-In the concerned premises, there was a film studio-Owner of premises obtained a decree of eviction against the studio-In order to help the film studio, State Government requisitioned the property and took possession thereof-Writ petition filed challenging the requisition-Settlement between the State Government and the owner of premises-Agreement for acquisition of property by State Government-A sum of Rs.11,00,000/- paid by Government in advance of acquisition-Section 4 notification-Compensation claim-Neither party led any evidence of any sale instances-Both the parties relying on judgment which was in respect of acquisition of adjoining property belonging to Golf Club-Whether Reference Court was justified in making valuation applying belting method-(No)-High Court was not right in holding that belting method was correct-Interest held payable from the date of award.

       Held : We are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for application of the belting method. The acquisition was of land on which a film studio stood. The acquisition was for the purposes of the film studio. It was a compact block of land which was acquired for a specific purpose. The land was not acquired for development into small plots where the value of plots near the road would have a higher value whilst those further away may have a lesser value. In such cases where a compact block is acquired the belting method would not be the correct method. (Para 8)

       That judgment was in respect of an acquisition of a very large plot of land admeasuring 17 bighas, 11 cottahs, 12 chittaks and 7 sq. ft. The land then acquired belonged to the Tollygunge Golf Club which held 343 bighas, 7 cottahs and 12 chittaks. A reading of the Judgment dated 30th May, 1983 in L.A. Case No. 61 of 1975 shows that the land then acquired was situated in a developed residential cum commercial area. That land was adjoining the land with which we are concerned. Thus the surrounding area would be the same. The Judgment shows that that land had a road frontage of 2775 ft. on Deshpran Sasmal Road and a frontage of 845 ft. on Baburam Ghosh Road. The judgment sets out that Deshpran Sasmal Road had a width of 120-130 ft. road, whereas Baburam Ghosh Road was a less wide road. The present land has a frontage of only 170 ft. on Baburam Ghosh Road. In the earlier case sale instances had been filed. The Court considered those sale instances and after averaging the price of those sale instances concluded that the value was Rs. 11,260/- per cottah. The Court then added 37-1/2 % for a wider road frontage. While so adding the Court again clarified that this was because it had a large frontage on the 120-130 ft. wide Deshpran Sasmal Road and also on the less wide Baburam Ghosh Road. Considering the fact that the present land only has a frontage on Baburam Ghosh Road, which is a less wide road, obviously an appreciation of 37-1/2% cannot be given. Also as stated above the present acquisition is of a compact block of land for an existing film studio. Therefore a road frontage does not have so much value in such a case. In our view, at the most an appreciation of 5% can be given for frontage in the present case. In the earlier judgment the Court then applied a depreciation of 22-1-/2 % for undeveloped condition of the land and for larger size and irregularity of shape. After deducting 22-1/2% from 37-1/2% the Court calculated net appreciation to be 15%. The price of 11,260/- was therefore increased to Rs. 12,950/-. This is the figure which according to the claimants is value fixed in the earlier judgment. In the earlier case, the Court then applied a co-efficient of 0.8% as the acquired land was a small piece out of a large tract of land and calculated the value at Rs. 10,360/- per cottah. This value was arrived at by multiplying Rs. 12,950/- by 0.8%. According to the State this is the value fixed in the earlier judgment. (Para 10)

       The additions and deductions are due to the peculiar nature of that land which do not apply in this case. As stated above in this case there is no frontage on a very wide road and therefore only 5% appreciation can be given for road frontage. However, even the land now acquired is a large piece of land. There must therefore be some deduction for largeness. The price of Rs. 11,260/- is fixed on basis of sale instances of small plots of land. It is well known that a large piece of land would never fetch the same price as a small piece of land. In our view, for largeness a depreciation of 5% can be given. Giving the above appreciation and depreciation the price remains at Rs. 11,260/- per cottah. The earlier acquisition was of the year 1974. Normally Courts give an appreciation of 10% per annum. Therefore for the 9-1/2 years there must be an appreciation at 95%. Thus to the figure of Rs. 11,260/- a sum of Rs. 10,697/- will have to be added. This would bring the value to Rs. 21,957/- per cottah. (Para 11)

       In view of the above, we hold that the valuation would be a sum of Rs. 21,957 per cottah. The claimants would also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and further entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% from 5th August, 1983 to 16th September, 1986. If after giving credit for the amounts paid or deposited, it is found that compensation payable has not been paid or deposited them interest thereon, either under Section 28 or 34 will be payable from that date of the Award i.e. 16th September, 1986 till payment. (Para 20)