HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RABIN BHATTACHARYYA
MUGNEERAM BANGUR AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 338 Of 1960
Decided On : May 17, 1974
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - POTENTIALITY OF LAND - SOLATIUM - INTEREST ON EXCESS AMOUNT - CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Collector of 24 Parganas decided to acquire lands in mouza Nilgunj and Suryapore covering an area of 273 bighas 5 cottahas and 10 chataks for the establishment of Central Jute Agricultural Research Station. The Special Land Acquisition Judge did not interfere with the awards passed by the L. A. Collector in the above-mentioned three cases. Hence, the claimant filed the Appeals Nos. 338, 339 and 340 of 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in L. A. Case Nos. 104, 107 and 109 of 1954, of the Court of Special Judge Alipore respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The market value of the danga and sali lands are to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 580/- per bigha, that of tank and doba at the rate of Rs. 130/- per bigha and that of road land at the rate of Rs. 65 per bigha. To the same, the value of the trees which have not been disputed will be added. The said amount will be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding further additional compensation at the rate of 15% on such market value as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. From the amount so found, the sum already paid to the claimants on the basis of L. A. Collector's award are to be deducted. The balance thus found is the excess amount to be paid by the State Government through the L. A. collector, with 6% interest on the same to be calculated from 29-1-1951, the date of taking possession of the acquired land till payment of the amount so found due to the claimants.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Land Acquisition Judge erred in assessing the correct market value of the land as existed on the date of notification? 2. Whether the Special Land Acquisition Judge erred in not considering the potentiality of land acquired due to which the Judge has fallen into an error? 3. Whether the market value of the danga and Sali lands ought to have been fixed at a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per bigha instead of 260/- as found by Spl. L. A. Judge? 4. Whether the Spl. L. A. Judge ought to have allowed 15% S. A. on the value of the trees which, through separately assessed is nothing but part and parcel of the value of the land? 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% on the excess amount?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cardinal principle for ascertaining the market value of the land is to find out what price a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser of the land acquired. 2. In ascertaining the market value of the land, the possibility of its being used for building purposes would have to be taken into account. It is equally plain, however, that the land must not be valued as though it had already been built upon. 3. The market value of the land acquired is to be determined by considering the following factors: (1)Price paid for adjacent land; (2)price offered within a reasonable time; (3) opinion of valuer or expert. 4. The market value of the land acquired cannot be based on any speculation or conjectures as to the use to which the land may be put to a distant future. 5. The potentiality of a land can be judged by reference to the possibility of the same being used in a particular manner before the same was acquired. 6. In the instant case, the land acquired was suitable for building purposes. The position of the lands, its surrounding features, its proximity to two of the municipal towns and also it being situated near Calcutta having bus route service at an interval of 15 minutes, go to show that the potentiality of the land for building purposes cannot be said to be an imaginary one. 7. The market value of the land acquired is to be calculated on the basis of the average of the prices obtained from the following sources: (1) The average price of the lands sold per bigha in the year 1939; (2) The L. A. Collector's valuation of the land per bigha in the year 1950; (3) The market value per bigha of the land as calculated on the basis of Exhibits 2 and 2a; (4) The market value per bigha of the land as per the opinion of the expert, the valuer. 8. The value of the trees is to be added to the value of the land to find the market value and to calculate solatium at the rate of 15% to be paid on the same.
Final Decision: The appeals are partly allowed with proportionate costs. The judgment and the decree of the Special Judge in the three cases are hereby set aside. The respondent, the State of West Bengal is directed to deposit the excess amount in the manner and within the time as indicated in this judgment, failing which claimants will realise the same in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THESE three appeals have been heard together as the same questions of law and facts are involved in all of them. They arise out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri S. N. Bagchi, Special Land Acquisition Judge. Alipore in L. A. case Nos. 104, 107 and 109 of 1954 (V ).
( 2 ) THESE appeals arise out of the following facts: by Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 the Collector of 24 Parganas decided to acquire the lands in mouza Nilgunj and Suryapore covering an area of 273 bighas 5 cottahas and 10 chataks. The lands involved in these cases were acquired by the government for the establishment of Central Jute Agricultural Research Station. The said notification was published in the official gazette on the 18th December, 1950 and possession of the acquired lands was taken by the Collector on the 29th January, 1951.
( 3 ) THE lands acquired are in a compact block situated in contiguous mouzas.
( 4 ) LET us give, in brief, the history how these appeals in this Court have arisen. In L. A. case 104 of 1954 (V) before the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore the awards in serial numbers 5, 8 and 10 of L. A. Case No. D 9/1 of 1951-52 passed by the L. A. Collector came for consideration. Similarly in L. A. case No. 107 of 1954 (V) and L. A. Case No. 109 of 1954 (V) of the Court of the Special Judge awards in L. A. Case D 9/3 of 1951-52 and in L. A. case No. D 9/2 of 1951-52 were respectively considered. The Special L. A. Judge did not interfere with the awards passed by the L. A. Collector in the above-mentioned three cases. Hence, the claimant filed the Appeals Nos. 338. 339 and 340 of 1960 against the judgment and decree passed in L. A. Case Nos. 104, 107 and 109 of 1954, of the Court of Special Judge Alipore respectively. The L. A. Collector fixed the market value of Danga and Sali lands in all these cases at the rate of Rs. 260/- per bigha. The doba and tanks were valued at the rate of Rs. 130 per bigha, the lands covered by the road were fixed at rate Rs. 65/- per bigha. The trees were separately valued. Those valuations were accepted by the Special Judge.
( 5 ) THE claimants challenged the compensation awarded by the Special Judge in these appeals.
( 6 ) THAT is, in short, the history to show how the three appeals have come before us for our consideration. As already stated the appeals are against the same judgment and decree passed by the Spl. L. A. Judge. We have consolidated them for hearing and as the same being heard analogously this judgment will govern all of them.
( 7 ) AT the very outset we like to say that the claimant wanted to have an excess amount of compensation awarded in all these cases.
( 8 ) MR. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the claimant has taken the following points: (1)that the Spl. L. A. Judge has failed to assess the correct market value of the land as existed on the date of notification. (2)that the Spl. L. A. Judge has not considered the potentiality of land acquired due to which the Judge has fallen into an error. (3)that the market value of the danga and Sali lands ought to have been fixed at a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per bigha instead of 260/- as found by Spl. L. A. Judge. (4) that the Spl. L. A. Judge ought to have allowed 15% S. A. on the value of the trees which, through separately assessed is nothing but part and parcel of the value of the land. (5)that the claimant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% on the excess amount.
( 9 ) IT may however, be mentioned that the claimants did not challenge price of the trees awarded and the market value of the tank, doba and the roads as fixed by the L. A. Collector.
( 10 ) MR. Sengupta, learned Govt. Pleader has, however submitted that the judgment passed by Spl. L. A. Judge is fool proof and it should not be disturbed. In addition to that Mr. Sengupta has taken a technical objection that as the claimant accepted the money awarded by L. A. Collector without any protest the reference made
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.