The court held that the lower court erred in assessing the valuation of the acquired land, trees, and structures by adding the value of the trees and structures to the land value and making an average thereof, resulting in a lower valuation. The court also held that the lower court awarded inadequate value for the standing trees and structures.

( 1 ) THIS appeal preferred by the referring claimant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in L. A. Misc. Case No 1 of 2000 arising out of L. A. Case No. 15 of 1999-2000. The claimant appellant has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the valuation of the acquired land assessed by the learned Judge and in not awarding proper valuation of trees and structures standing on the land along with other grounds.

( 2 ) IT appears that the claimant appellant made a reference under section 18 of the L. A. Act - I, 1894 being dissatisfied with the award made by the L. A. Collector, Midnapore in connection with L. A. Case No. 15 of 1999-2000. It appears that the L. A. Collector acquired 0. 10 acres of land of Mouza Garhmoyna in plot No. 395 under J. L. No. 207 within P. S. Moyna, District Midnapore for construction of Prajabarh to Bhagwnpur Road and it was acquired vide declaration No. 5431/la/2r-4/98 dated 29. 12. 1998 which was published in part 1 of Calcutta Gazette dated 30. 3. 1998 which was subsequently published in the locality dated 30. 6. 1998. In the reference made by the claimant it was alleged that the L. A. Collector gave compensation on the valuation of the acquired land @rs. 2,01,000. 00 per acre i. e. , @rs. 2,1000/- per decimal which was grossly under valued ignoring the actual market price. The claimant received the award under protest and made the reference. It has been contended by the claimant that at the relevant time of acquisition of land in question the price of similar type of land of same locality was not less than Rs. 13,000/- per decimal. It was further contended that the L. A. Collector assessed value of structures standing on the acquired land as Rs. 8,656. 68p. which is also under valued and the value of the structures with boundary wall ought to have been Rs. 40,432/ -. It was further contended by the claimant that the L. A. Collector assessed value of standing trees on the acquired land at Rs. 2,768/- only but value of the six coconut trees standing on the acquired land should have been Rs. 9,000/ -. It was further alleged that the L. A. Collector should have assessed rent value of Rs. 1,22,072/- for taking illegal possession of the said bastu land since 4. 2. 1983 without publishing plot No. 395 in Gazette Notification which was subsequently published in the locality of 30. 6. 1998. Besides that, the claimant claimed 40% additional compensation and 18% interest over the total amount from date of notification till date of actual payment.

( 3 ) THE reference made by the claimant under section 18 (1) of the L. A. Act was sent to the District Judge, Midnapore and it was heard and disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court. It appears from the judgment and decree passed by the learned L. A. Judge that he assessed valuation of the acquired land @rs. 9,000/- per decimal. He allowed solatium @30% p. a. over the calculated amount less the amount already paid by the L. A. Collector and also awarded @12% p. a. on the market value of the land for the period from the date of notification till the date of award made by L. A. Collector. He further awarded interest @9% p. a. over the principle amount of compensation from date of acquisition till payment of the compensation amount.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Chandra Sekhar Das, appearing for the claimant appellant contended that the learned L. A. Judge erred in law and fact in assessing the market value of the acquired land @rs. 9,000/- per decimal in spite of coming to the observation in his judgment that at the relevant time of notification the average price of land should have been @rs. 14,000/- per decimal. Learned Judge made error in the calculation by adding value of trees and structure with the land value and making average value to