Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
Sate of West Bengal – Petitioner
Versus
Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Ltd. – Respondent
F.A 65 of 2014 With C.O.T 78 of 2013
Decided on : 18-11-2016.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Supratim Dhar, Adv. : Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Debayan Bera, Adv., Mr. Sakti Prasad Chakrabarti, Adv.
The valuation of land acquired under Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act should be determined by following the first proviso added to that section.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - VALUATION OF LAND - DEDUCTION FOR DEVELOPMENT COSTS - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - CALCULATION.
Fact of the Case:
The instant case involves a land acquisition dispute, where the referring claimant challenges the valuation of its land acquired by the State and the grant of additional compensation and interest thereon. The State, in its appeal, contends that the valuation of the land was not properly assessed and that the Land Acquisition Judge erred in not deducting 33 1/3% from the total land value for development costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Land Acquisition Judge was justified in discarding the sale deeds produced by the acquiring body as they related to land situated in a different Mouza from that of the referring claimant's land. The court also held that the valuation of the land should have been determined by following the first proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the acquisition was completed under that provision. The court further held that the plots of land classified as pukur/tank and doba should have been assessed at the rate equivalent to half of the value of the solid land of the referring claimant. The court also held that the Land Acquisition Judge was justified in not deducting 33 1/3% from the total land value for development costs, as there was no evidence that any money was required to be spent for such development. The court, however, held that the additional compensation should be paid @ 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award, as per the proviso added to Section 23(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also held that the referring claimant was not entitled to get interest on the entire compensation either from the date of possession or from the date of the notification, but was entitled to receive interest for one year at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Land Acquisition Judge was justified in discarding the sale deeds produced by the acquiring body? 2. Whether the valuation of the land should have been determined by following the first proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act? 3. Whether the plots of land classified as pukur/tank and doba should have been assessed at the rate equivalent to half of the value of the solid land of the referring claimant? 4. Whether the Land Acquisition Judge was justified in not deducting 33 1/3% from the total land value for development costs? 5. Whether the additional compensation should be paid @ 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award? 6. Whether the referring claimant was entitled to get interest on the entire compensation either from the date of possession or from the date of the notification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Land Acquisition Judge was justified in discarding the sale deeds produced by the acquiring body as they related to land situated in a different Mouza from that of the referring claimant's land. 2. The valuation of the land should have been determined by following the first proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the acquisition was completed under that provision. 3. The plots of land classified as pukur/tank and doba should have been assessed at the rate equivalent to half of the value of the solid land of the referring claimant. 4. The Land Acquisition Judge was justified in not deducting 33 1/3% from the total land value for development costs, as there was no evidence that any money was required to be spent for such development. 5. The additional compensation should be paid @ 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award, as per the proviso added to Section 23(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The referring claimant was not entitled to get interest on the entire compensation either from the date of possession or from the date of the notification, but was entitled to receive interest for one year at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal and the cross-objection were allowed to the extent indicated by the court. The impugned judgment and/or decree was modified accordingly.
1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Land Acquisition Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in land acquisition case no. LRA-18 of 2002 at the instance of the State Government alleging that the valuation of the acquired land of the referring claimant has not been properly and/or correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge.
2. Bone of contention of the appellant:
3. According to the appellant, the learned Land Acquisition Judge, while assessing the valuation of the referring claimant’s land ought not to have fixed the valuation of the acquired land without taking into account the sale deeds which were produced by the Land Acquisition Collector in the said proceeding.
4. It is also contended by the appellant that considering the largeness of the land acquired by the State, the Land Acquisition Collector ought to have allowed deduction of 33 1/3% from the total land value of the acquired land.
5. It was also contended by the appellant that the Land Acquisition Judge, while assessing compensation payable to the claimants for the land acquired, ought not to have allowed the additional compensation on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award.
6. According to the appellant such additional compensation could have been allowed on the market value of the land from the date of the notification upto the date of the award.
7. These are the primary grounds on which the legality and/or the validity of the impugned judgment and decree was challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
8. Bone of contention of the referring claimant/cross-objector:
9. The referring claimant has filed a cross-objection challenging the impugned judgment and decree, in connection with this appeal. According to the referring claimant, the valuation of its land acquired by the State was not correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge after taking into account, the valuation of the land which was transacted in the concerned Mouza at the relevant time of issuance of notification under Sections 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act.
10. It is also contended by the referring claimant that the Land Acquisition Judge was not justified in allowing 20% deduction on the land value on account of largeness of the land acquired by the State even though there is no evidence that the acquiring body either has spent or will have to spend any amount of money towards development of the land acquired for making it fit for use for the purpose for which the land was acquired.
11. It is also contended by the referring claimant that the Land Acquisition Judge was also not justified in assessing the valuation of the tank (pukur) at a rate which is equivalent to ¼ of the rate fixed for assessment of the valuation of the other plots of lands such as bastu, danga, pukurpar and karkhana.
12. It is also contended by the referring claimant that having regard to the fact that the acquisition of the land under Act II of 1948 could not be completed prior to the said Act stood lapsed, such land was ultimately acquired by following the amended provision contained in Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act by issuance of notice under wrong caption of Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act. Since possession of the land of the referring claimant was taken as back as on 12th April, 1989 under Act II of 1948, the Land Acquisition Judge, according to the referring claimant, did not commit any illegality in awarding additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession to the date of the award.
13. Thus, we find that both the acquiring body as well as the referring claimant are dissatisfied with the judgment and/or decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge; however they challenged the legality of the said judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Judge from different angle
