Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, M. M. DUTT
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
GANESH CHANDRA MITRA - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 907 Of 1967
Decided On : DECEMBER 10, 1971
LAND ACQUISITION - Compensation - Valuation of acquired property - Principles applicable - Market value - Sale transactions - Evidence - Valuation of structures - Capitalisation of rental value - Fair rent - Valuation by Executive Engineer - Offer to sell property - Value of compound wall, gates, platform, statues, iron posts and pucca ghat - Valuation of trees - Excavation cost of tank - Additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Interest on excess amount awarded.
Fact of the Case:
The State of West Bengal appealed against the awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Purulia, in two land acquisition cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The property acquired was a premises comprising buildings, land and a tank known as 'Kamala Kutir'. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the total amount of compensation at Rs. 1,18,228.38 including the additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act. The referring claimants, who were the respondents before the High Court, made two applications under Section 18 of the Act objecting to the amount of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that: (i) The market value of the property should be determined on the basis of bona fide transactions of purchase of similar properties, the number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profit from the acquired lands, and the opinion of valuers or experts. (ii) The valuation of the main building by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of the rent paid by the D.F.O. was not correct as the rent was not the fair rent or the prevailing rent in the locality for buildings having similar advantages and amenities. (iii) The valuation of the structures including the main building made by the Executive Engineer was more reliable and should be accepted. (iv) The offer made by the respondents to sell the property to the Government at a certain price was not a good indication of the market value of the property as it was made under pressing need for money to clear debts. (v) The compensation awarded for the compound wall, gates, platform, statues, iron posts and pucca ghat was inadequate and should be enhanced. (vi) The compensation awarded for the trees was also inadequate and should be enhanced. (vii) The respondents were entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act and interest on the excess amount awarded from the date of possession of the acquired premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the market value of the property should be determined on the basis of bona fide transactions of purchase of similar properties, the number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profit from the acquired lands, and the opinion of valuers or experts? 2. Whether the valuation of the main building by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of the rent paid by the D.F.O. was correct? 3. Whether the valuation of the structures including the main building made by the Executive Engineer was more reliable and should be accepted? 4. Whether the offer made by the respondents to sell the property to the Government at a certain price was a good indication of the market value of the property? 5. Whether the compensation awarded for the compound wall, gates, platform, statues, iron posts and pucca ghat was inadequate and should be enhanced? 6. Whether the compensation awarded for the trees was also inadequate and should be enhanced? 7. Whether the respondents were entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act and interest on the excess amount awarded from the date of possession of the acquired premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The market value of the property should be determined on the basis of bona fide transactions of purchase of similar properties, the number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profit from the acquired lands, and the opinion of valuers or experts. 2. The valuation of the main building by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of the rent paid by the D.F.O. was not correct as the rent was not the fair rent or the prevailing rent in the locality for buildings having similar advantages and amenities. 3. The valuation of the structures including the main building made by the Executive Engineer was more reliable and should be accepted. 4. The offer made by the respondents to sell the property to the Government at a certain price was not a good indication of the market value of the property as it was made under pressing need for money to clear debts. 5. The compensation awarded for the compound wall, gates, platform, statues, iron posts and pucca ghat was inadequate and should be enhanced. 6. The compensation awarded for the trees was also inadequate and should be enhanced. 7. The respondents were entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act and interest on the excess amount awarded from the date of possession of the acquired premises.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The cross-objection of the respondents in F.A. No. 906 of 1967 was also dismissed. The cross-objection of the respondents in F.A. No. 907 of 1967 was allowed in part. The award of the learned Additional District Judge was modified to the extent that the respondents were entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,634 on account of compensation for the boundary wall and a further sum of Rs. 570 on account of the trees. The respondents were also entitled to a sum of 15 per cent on the market value of the land under Section 23 (2) of the Act and interest on the excess amount awarded from the date of possession of the acquired premises.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals at the instance of the State of West Bengal are against the awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Purulia, in two land acquisition cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
( 2 ) THE property acquired is a premises comprising buildings, land and a tank- The premises is known as 'kamala Kutir'. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the acquisition of Kamala Kutir was published on May 16, 1960. The description of the premises and the buildings, fixtures and other amenities appertaining thereto, appear from the following portion of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, as follows :--"the premises 'kamala Kutir' stand on 7. 91 acres of land with a compound wall on all sides measuring 7 ft. 6 inches in height and 1931 Rft. in length. Within this boundary-wall, there was a Bungalow having a plinth area of 6061 Rft. , with terraced roof on rolled steel joists and tees, all walls 20" thick at super structure containing a main hall covering a floor area of 692 sit, with a front Verandah of 900 sft. , in marble floor and Mosaic dado, two rooms covering a floor area of 361 sft. , having Mosaic floor and dado and five other rooms, septic latrine and bath and the remaining Verandahs having artificial stone floor and dado with electric fittings and glazed and Venetian shutters for outside doors and windows and pannel shutters for inside doors and also containing a circular and cast iron stair case for going to the roof. Besides the main building as above, there was one Pucca structure with C. I. Sheet roof measuring 1058 sft. , one Pucca structure with Khapra roof measuring 1053 sft. , one Chala with Pucca structure and C. I, sheet roof measuring 12 sft. (?) one attached Chala with C. I, sheet roofing of 709 sft. , one Pucca structure with C. I. sheet roofing measuring 866 sft. one attached Chala with C. I. sheet roofing measuring 396 Eft. one Pucca building measuring 1114 sft. , one Pucca structure with Khapra roof measuring 144 sft. , one Pucca walled house measuring 432 sft. , one Pucca privy measuring 217 sft. , one Pucca building measuring 377 sft, and one Pucca structure with C. I. sheet roof measuring 188 sft. In the premises there were further five pucca wells and two cisterns. There were also four Octagonal masonry gate pillars 13 ft. high above the ground level and M. C. Beam rail over the gate-opening joining the pillars and one M S. ornamental iron gate, one round masonry platform in front of the Bungalow 19'. 6" diameter and one ft. , high above the ground level, four cement statues on masonry base and six iron light-posts, one tank having a bed area of 1. 23 acres with ridges measuring 1. 51 acres and a Pucca Khat in it and also some trees. The main building was constructed in 1926 by late Lalit Kishore Mitra, who was a lawyer by profession and all other constructions within the premises were completed mostly by 1935, the tank only being constructed in 1938. "
( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the premises comprise a compact area measuring 7. 91 acres and surrounded by a boundary wall a portion of the area measuring 5. 43 acres consisting of the entire homestead and a small portion of the bank of the tank appertains to mouja Puru-lia and the remaining portion measuring 2. 48 acres consisting of the entire land and the major portion of the bank, appertains to mouja Raghabpur. In view of the fact that the area of the premises appertains to two moujas, two land acquisition cases were started by the Land Acquisition Collector.
( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector assessed the total amount of compensation in these two cases at a sum of Rs. 1. 18. 228. 38 including the additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act. The different items and the compensation allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector in both the cases appear from his award, as follows :-- . Rs . np .
1. For 5. 17 decimals of land classified as Bastu Bagan at the r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
