Section 7 (2) (a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, which provided for non-payment of statutory solatium, was ultra vires and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to 15% statutory allowance under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arose out of an application for reference under Section 18 at the instance of the claimant. By notification dated 17th April, 1965, 336. 27 dec. of land was acquired out of which the appellant is interested in C. S. Plots Nos. 4091, 4092 and 4095 and the Collector toy his award dated 3rd September, 1968 allowed Rs. 39,263. 85 p. The nature of the land in which we are interested in this application are Bill, Bhery and Bhery machchas. The Collector valued the bill and bhery lands at the rate of Rs. 1210/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award given toy the learned Collector, the appellant referring claimant made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rupees 2500/- per cottah for the acquisition of the petitioner's property. She also claimed Rs. 2500/- per month for the period of requisition. The learned arbitrator however allowed at the rate of Rs. 80/- per cottah or Rs. 1616/- per bigha and he further gave 6% interest on the land and also 15% statutory allowance on the land value. The award was made on 26th April, 1971. Thereafter the State Government made an application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the judgment passed on 26th April, 1971. On review by order dated 14th June, 1971, 15% statutory allowance was disallowed in view of the Supreme Court judgment in.

( 2 ) MR. Das Gupta on behalf of the appellant contended that the valuations of Beel, Bhery and Bandh were too low on the material date on 26th June, 1965 or at the rate of Rs. 80/- per cottah as fixed by the arbitrator. Mr. Das Gupta contended that the appellant produced number of documents which were not considered at all by the learned arbitrator. The documents produced by the appellant are Exts. 3a, 3b and 3c. The appellant also produced two awards (Exts. 1 and 2) and gave evidence to the effect that he was earning a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- from one Bhusan Naskar before the vesting of the estate in the State of West Bengal. The evidence was given by the witness No. 1 for the claimant that the acquired bhery was about 2 miles from the Bengal Chemicals which is within the Calcutta Corporation. The terminus of the State Bus No. 14 is at the Bengal Chemicals. The V. I. P. Road is about 3/4 miles from the bhery. There was waist-deep water in the beel and that she claimed Rs. 2500/- per cottah in respect of the property in question. Ext. 3 was a document dated 3rd June, 1959 which shows a sale deed of 31 dec. land of plot No. 3558 at the rate of Rs. 3000/ -. per cottah. In our opinion, the Court below rightly rejected the said kobala which has no relation with the land in question and is quite long way off from the property under acquisition which is recorded as beel, bhery and bhery machchas. The next document relied upon by the claimant is Ext. 3a, that is also a small plot of garden land and the rate was Ra 15500/- per acre in one case and Rs. 9700/- per acre in other. These plots covered by Ext. 3 are all quite a long way off from the plot acquired in the present case. Ext. 3b was a kobala dated 20th July, 1963, by which 16 cottahs 14 chittacks of land was sold for Rs. 28,000/ -. Ext. 3c is also document dated 5th March, 1965 by which 2 cottahs and 15 chittacks and 31 sq. ft. of land were sold at the rate of Rs. 1500/-per cottah. Exts. 1 and 2 are certified copies of judgment and decree passed in L. A. Case No. 34 of 1969 (V ). The Kobala produced toy the State Government was rejected by the learned arbitrator on the ground that the said Exts. A to A-3 are not relevant for the purpose of value of beel, bhery and bandh land, inasmuch as, they are in respect of transaction 10 years ago from the date. We are concerned with the material date of notification dated 25th June, 1965. He also rejected Exts. 3, 3a and 3b as the nature of lands are of garden lands and sali lands and that cannot be a proper guide for the purpose of valuation of