The value of land acquired for a public purpose should be determined without taking into account any increase in the value of the remaining land of the owner due to the use to which the acquired land will be put.

( 1 ) THIS is the State's appeal, arising out of a Land Acquisition proceeding. The acquired land is a strip 6 ft. wide by the side of a public lane (Ganesh Banerjee Lane) in Dhakuria and the acquisition is on behalf of the Municipality for widening that lane. The strip stretches in length along Ganesh Banerjee Lane which adjoins, it on the west and its width (6 ft.) abuts on the main thoroughfare Sarat Ghose Garden Road which is to its adjacent north. It measures 3 kattas, 10 chittaks and 30 sq. ft. and it forms part of c. s. plot No. 658 (of mouza Dhakuria) which has an area of 41 acre and belongs to the claimants-respondents.

( 2 ) THE relevant notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is dated the 27th February, 1947. It was published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 16th March, 1947. Statutory declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on the 23rd February, 1948, and it was published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 26th February, 1948. The Collector gave his award on the 27th October, 1948, valuing the land at Rs. 1,000/- per katta, and for trees etc. he awarded Rs. 40/- and his total award, including the usual statutory allowance at 15 per cent. , came up to Rs. 4,262-10-8p.

( 3 ) THE claimants were not satisfied and they applied for a reference to the learned Land Acquisition Judge. That reference was duly made and it was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 56/49 (v) of the Court of the Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore. This valuation reference was eventually heard by Sri M. L. Chakraverty who enhanced the Collector's award to Rs. 10,646-4-11p, the actual enhancement being Rs. 5,383-10-3p (including statutory allowance), the price of land having been fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge at Rs. 2,500/- per katta. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the State of West Bengal has preferred the present appeal. The claimants-respondents have filed a cross-objection with a view to get further enhancement. 3. The short point that arises in the appeal is as to the proper value of the acquired land. That is also one of the questions in the claimants' cross-objection which seeks, further, enhancement of the award for costs and interest as made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge.

( 4 ) AS to valuation of land, we have to decide a point of principle and then determine the quantum in the light of that principle and upon the evidence in the case. The point of principle is of first impression and of some importance. It is argued by the State that the strip being 6 ft. wide it should be valued on the basis of valuation of similar strips and, as a strip 6 ft. wide cannot constitute a building site, in valuing it, the standard of valuation of building plots cannot be of any assistance. The claimants, on the other hand, contend that the strip should be valued, taking into account its value to the owner with all its existing advantages and all its possibilities and potentialities, that is, as part of the best plot at the site or in the neighbourhood. We do not think that either of the above two views is correct. In our opinion, both appear to lean towards extremes and the true view would be that the acquired strip would be valued as part of the claimants' c. s. plot No. 658 taking into account its (that is, the c. s. plot's) value to the owner with all its existing advantages and all its possibilities and potentialities. If the acquired strip had been the only land, belonging to the claimants at the site, and not part of a bigger plot, belonging to them, the State's argument would have been unanswerable. If, on the other hand, the said strip had been part of the best plot at the site or in the neighbourhood, the claimants' contention ought to have been accepted. Neither the one nor the other, however, represents the actual situation. The acquired strip is part of c. s. plot No. 658, belonging to the claimants, and it should, accordingly, be valued as such taking into account, as we