The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for awarding compensation in land acquisition cases, emphasizing the consideration of market value and transactions of similar lands in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Sen, J. - The present appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 30.05.2003, as passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.40 of 1995 by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Fast Track Court, Hooghly, in a reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). By the impugned judgement, the said Court while allowing the said reference, reassessed the quantum of loss of the land looser to the extent of Rs.5000/- per cottah for 'Bhiti' land and Rs.6000/- per cottah for 'Bagan' land and at the same time awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the excess amount as assessed by the said Court together with further interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the excess market value with a further sum of 30% as solatium. The land looser felt aggrieved with the assessment and, thus, preferred the instant appeal.

2. In the reference case before the said Court it is the case of the appellant herein that for the purpose of construction of sub-station of West Bengal State Electricity Board in Uttar Chandannagar, two plots of the present appellant were acquired by the State and since the awarded amount was low and inadequate, the present appellant accepted the said award on protest and, thus, required the matter to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court under Section 18 of the said Act.

3. Before the said Court the L.A. Collector however took stand that the award is very much justified and adequate.

4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, learned advocate for the appellants draws attention of this Court to the Lower Court Record. It is contended by him that while passing the impugned judgement the said Court has miserably failed to adhere to the established principles for ascertaining compensation. It is further contended that the said Court erred in law and in facts in not relying upon the certified copies of the judgements as passed in different cases in respect of the other parts of the land in question. It is, thus, contended that the instant appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgement with a further request to enhance the rate of land as acquired by the State/respondent herein.

5. While opposing the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent/State submits before this Court that since before the said court the present appellant being the land looser has miserably failed to prove any documents to substantiate that the value of the land as acquired is much than assessed, the Learned Court is very much justified in passing the impugned judgement. It is further submitted that the said impugned judgement is very much well reasoned. It is, thus, contended that the instant appeal may be dismissed.

In course of his argument learned advocate for the appellant placed his reliance upon the following reported decisions namely :-

i) Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2011 (3) ICC 283;

ii) Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (D) By LRs. & Ors. Vs. Deputy Collector & LA & Anr. Reported in 2011(3) ICC 786;

iii) Union of India And Others. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269.

6. This Court has perused the entire materials as available in the case record of L.A. Misc. Case No. 40/1995 including the impugned judgment. This Court has also perused the written notes of argument as submitted by the learned advocate for the contesting parties. This Court has also given its anxious consideration over the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned advocate for the respondent.

7. In considered view of this Court for effective disposal of the instant appeal the principle for awarding compensation as enunciated by the Supreme Court of India as well as by the different High Courts are required to be looked into. In the reported decision of Trishala Jain (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the p