SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Cal) 152

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. MOOKERJEE, MITTER
MOHINI MOHAN SAHA - Appellant
Versus
PROVINCE OF BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  148  Of  1946
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 09, 1949

Advocates Appeared:
AMARENDRA NATH GUPTA, LALIT MOHAN BAKSHI, NARESH CHANDRA SEN GUPTA, SATYENDRA NATH MITRA

The belting method for valuation and the determination of deduction for size and shape of the plot were central to the Court's decision.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Valuation of acquired land - Calcutta Improvement Tribunal - Calcutta Improvement Act (Bengal Act V [5] of 1911) - Section 53, Land Acquisition Act - Code of Civil Procedure - Belting method for valuation - Deduction for size and shape of plot - Appeal allowed in part

Fact of the Case:

Premises No. 81 Bahir Surah Road was acquired in connection with Improvement Scheme No. IV--Manicktolla (Supplementary) Excavation Area. After hearing the parties, the Collector fixed the land value at Rs. 250 per cottah. Most claimants accepted the compensation, but eight claimants applied for a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The Tribunal introduced the belting method for valuation and made various determinations regarding the depth of the first belt, area of the tank, and deduction for the size and nature of the plot.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal's valuation was enhanced, and the referring claimants appealed to the Court, raising points regarding the area of the tank, depth of the first belt, and the deduction allowed by the Tribunal. The Court found that the area of the tank was correctly determined, upheld the other findings, and allowed the appeal in part by reducing the deduction to be allowed.

Issues: Dispute over the area of the tank, depth of the first belt, and the deduction allowed by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the Tribunal's determination of the area of the tank and the depth of the first belt, but reduced the deduction allowed by the Tribunal from 20% to 12.5%.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the Tribunal was directed to determine the value of the land acquired by fixing the deduction to be allowed at 12.5%.

R. P. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) PREMISES No. 81 Bahir Surah Road, was acquired in connection with Improvement Scheme No. IV--Manicktolla (Supplementary) Excavation Area. The declaration was dated 1-9-1941 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 4-9-1941. There were a large number of claimants and the Collector after hearing the parties fixed the land value at Rs. 250 per cottah as an average rate. Compensation was also allowed for certain trees standing on the laud. Most of the claimants accepted the compensation as allowed by the Collector. Eight of the claimants did not accept the award and applied for a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. Before the Tribunal evidence was led and experts were examined on behalf of the claimants and the Province. The claim before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants was at the average rate of Rs. 500 per cottah. The experts on behalf of both the parties agreed that to ascertain the proper market value the valuation should be fixed by dividing the land into different belts. Both the parties were further agreed that the value of the first belt of firm land was Rs. 600 per cottah. The parties, however, differed as to the depth of the first belt. According to the claimants' expert it should be 100 feet while for the Province it was contended that it should be 60' feet. The Tribunal accepted the opinion of the expert on behalf of the Province. The Tribunal, further, found that the value of the portion covered by tank would be two-thirds of the valuation as fixed for solid land, and not half as urged by the Province.

( 2 ) THE other point raised before the Tribunal was as to the area of the tank in the property in question. The Tribunal accepted the area as put forward on behalf of the Province, viz. , 93 cottahs.

( 3 ) THE experts also differed as to the rate of deduction to be allowed for the size and nature of the plot. The Tribunal overruled the objection on behalf of the claimant under this head also and allowed a deduction of 20 per cent.

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that the value of the tank portion was fixed at two-third and not half solid land and also because of the belting method introduced by the Tribunal, the valuation was enhanced by Rs. 4,076-8-0 inclusive of the usual 15 per cent. statutory allowance over and above the Collector's award.

( 5 ) THE referring claimants were dissatisfied with the amount fixed by the Tribunal and they have preferred this appeal to this Court. Three points have been urged on behalf of the appellant : (1) The area of the tank was not 93 cottahs but much less and that there should be a further enquiry with regard to the correct area. (2) The depth of the first belt should be fixed at 100' feet and not 60' feet. (3) The deduction allowed by the Tribunal at 20 per cent. is too high and should be reduced to 21/2.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties as regards the total area acquired, viz. , a bighas 12 cottahs 14 ch. This premises was originally a garden with a big and good tank. The area of this tank as it can be ascertained from the acquisition plan is about 93 cottahs. In course of the hearing before the Tribunal on behalf of the Province, another plan was produced which is described to be a "level plan" and is marked as Ex. KK. The contour of the tank as shown in this map is different from that in the acquisition plan. After evidence had been closed and when arguments were proceeding an application was filed on behalf of the Province for being given an opportunity to prove another plan which had been found out from the records of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, the acquiring authority. That prayer was allowed and EX. LL. came to be marked after examination and cross-examination of a new witness. The size and position of the tank in EX. LL is the same as in the acquisition plan. There appears to be a marked difference between the position and size of the tank as shown in EX. KK on the one hand and EX. LL and the acquisition plan on the













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top