Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 400
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Altarmas Kabir and Ranjan Kumar Mazumdar, JJ.
State of West Bengal
Versus
Anil Kumar Ghosh
FA Nos.186 & 187 of 1993 with C.O.T. Nos. 363 & 364 of 1992
Decided On : August 9, 2000
Advocate Appeared:
Soumen Dasgupta, Aniruddha Bagchi for the appellant;
Amar Nath Banerjee, Tapan Kumar Sengupta, Debayan Bera for the respondent.
The benefits of section 23(1A) of the 1894 Act will also be available in respect of lands acquired under Act II of 1948.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - VALUATION - LAND-LOCKED - ASSESSMENT - COMPENSATION - SECTION 23(1A) - SECTION 23(2) - SECTION 28 - ACT I OF 1894 - ACT II OF 1948 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION - INTEREST - SOLATIUM.
Fact of the Case:
The Referring Claimant, who is the respondent in these appeals and the cross objector in the two cross objections, was at all material times the sole owner of RS. Plot Nos. 2382 and 2374, pertaining to Khatian No. 522 of mouza-Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District 24 Parganas (South), measuring 83 decimals and 39 decimals respectively, which were sali in nature and were acquired for the East Calcutta Area Development Project. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,534/- per cottah.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Land Acquisition Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, allowed the two reference cases, being L.RA. Case Nos. 18 and 19 of 1990 (v) and passed the following order.
Issues: 1. Whether the valuation of the acquired lands had been correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector? 2. Whether the learned Special L.A. Judge had erred in enhancing the same? 3. Whether the lands in question had been converted into homestead and no improvements had also been made thereupon? 4. Whether the lands were land-locked and did not open out onto any public road or pathway? 5. Whether the value would, therefore, have to be assessed in keeping with its location and character? 6. Whether the land value could not exceed what had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector? 7. Whether the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge had not correctly assessed the evidence adduced by the parties and had, therefore, arbitrarily enhanced the valuation of the lands from Rs. 1534/- per cottah to Rs. 8,700/- per cottah?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The valuation of the acquired plots by the Collector and the learned court below, respectively, was done on the basis of its finding that the plots in question are land-locked. Having regard to the principles of valuation of land-locked properties, the valuation as arrived at by the learned court below is in consonance with such principles, if the claim of the cross objector that the market value of the acquired lands should be Rs.25,000/- per cottah is to be accepted. 2. The plots in question are not completely land-locked and are accessible from the pathway on the bund to the north thereof and their market value as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of Act I of 1894 would have to be assessed on such basis. 3. The market value of the acquired plots on the date of publication of the notice of acquisition under section 4(la) of Act II of 1948 should be assessed at Rs. 25,000/- per cottah, as claimed by the cross objector since the same are not completely land-locked. 4. The cross objector will be entitled to the benefit of section 23(1-A) and be entitled to an additional amount on the entire market value of the acquired plots at the rate of 12% from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(la) of Act II of 1948 till the date of the award. 5. The cross objector will be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of market value of the acquired plots, including solatium under section 23(2) and the additional amount under section 23(I-A) of Act I of 1894, and recurring compensation for the period from 15.5.78 to 29.11.83 calculated at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till payment of the award money, subject to deduction of the amounts already paid.
Final Decision: The appeals and the cross objections are disposed of by modifying the judgments and decrees of the learned court below as follows: 1. The market value of the acquired plots as on the date of the notification under section 4(la) of Act II of 1948 is assessed at Rs.25,000/- per cottah instead of Rs. 8,700/- per cottah assessed by the learned court below. 2. The cross objector will be entitled to the benefit of section 23(1-A) and be entitled to an additional amount on the entire market value of the acquired plots at the rate of 12% from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(la) of Act II of 1948 till the date of the award. 3. The cross objector will be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of market value of the acquired plots, including solatium under section 23(2) and the additional amount under section 23(I-A) of Act I of 1894, and recurring compensation for the period from 15.5.78 to 29.11.83 calculated at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till payment of the award money, subject to deduction of the amounts already paid.
Altamas Kabir, J.
These two appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act", and the two cross-objections filed therein, were taken up for hearing together as they arise out of a common judgment dated 1st November, 1990, by which the learned Special LA Judge, First Court, Alipore disposed of L.RA. Case Nos. 18 and 19 of 1990(v).
2. The Referring Claimant, who is the respondent in these appeals and the cross objector in the two cross objections, was at all material times the sole owner of RS. Plot Nos. 2382 and 2374, pertaining to Khatian No. 522 of mouza-Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District 24 Parganas (South), measuring 83 decimals and 39 decimals respectively, which were sali in nature and were acquired for the East Calcutta Area Development Project. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,534/- per cottah.
3. By his judgment dated 1st November, 1990, the learned Special L.A. Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, allowed the two reference cases, being L.RA. Case Nos. 18 and 19 of 1990 (v) and passed the following order.
"ORDERED
That the L.R.A. Case No. 18 of 1990(v) and L.RA. No. 19 of 1990(v) are allowed in part on contest without any cost. Referring claimant are entitled to valuation of the Sali land @ Rs. 8,700/- per cottah. Referring claimant also entitled S.A. @ 30% on the entire market value less already paid by the Id. Collector. Referring claimants are entitled to Rental Compensation per annum form 15.5.78 till 28.11.83. Referring claimant also entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from 29.11.83 to 28.11.84 and thereafter @ 15% from 29.11.84 till payment as per amended section 28 of Act, 1894.
State of West Bengal is given two months time to deposit the decretal dues in court."
4. These two appeals have been filed by the State of West Bengal against the judgment and decree dated 1st November, 1990, of the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge in L.RA. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1990(v) and the two cross objections in connection therewith have been filed by the Referring Claimant.
5. On behalf of the State of West Bengal it was urged by Mr. Soumen Dasgupta that the valuation of the acquired lands had been correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Special L.A. Judge had erred in enhancing the same. It was also contended that the lands in question had not been converted into homestead and no improvements had also been made thereupon. Furthermore, the lands were land-locked and did not open out onto any public road or pathway. There value would, therefore, have to be assessed in keeping with its location and character.
6. It was submitted that in the facts of this case the land value could not exceed what had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
7. It was also contended that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge had not correctly assessed the evidence adduced by the parties and had, therefore, arbitrarily enhanced the valuation of the lands from Rs. 1534/- per cottah to Rs. 8,700/- per cottah.
8. Appearing for the Referring Claimant/cross objector, Mr. Amar Nath Banerjee submitted that, although, in the cross objection the cross objector had claimed that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge should have enhanced the land value to at least Rs. 25,000/- per cottah, the valuation would, in fact, be much more in the light of certain materials which were discovered after the learned Judge had disposed of the reference cases. Mr. Banerjee submitted that two applications had been made on behalf of the cross objector under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record such additional evidence and supplementary paper books had also been prepared and filed on behalf of the cross objector.
9. Mr. Banerjee submitted that both the Collector, as also the Special Land Acquisition Judge, had proceeded on the basis that the plots in question were land-looked, although, tha
