Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(Cal) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
NTPC Ltd. & Others - Appellant
Versus
Rashtropati Ghosh & Others - Respondent
FAT. Nos. 446 to 448 of 2015 & FA. Nos. 17 & 48 of 2018, 54 of 2016
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining the market value of acquired land, including the relevance of purpose of acquisition, deductions for development costs, and the highest exemplar test.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Valuation and Compensation
Act Referred
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.18, S.4, S.25, S.11, S.23
Headnote
Land Acquisition - Katwa Thermal Power Project - Act 1 of 1894 - Section 18 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the valuation of acquired land for the Katwa Thermal Power Project under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It highlights the assessment of market value, deductions for development costs, and the relevance of purpose of acquisition in determining compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the valuation of acquired land for the Katwa Thermal Power Project. The land was acquired by the State of West Bengal for and on behalf of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited. The appellants, successors-in-interest of the original requiring body, challenged the valuation of the acquired land by the LA Collector before the learned LA Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the LA Judge erred in not allowing any deduction towards the situation angle and development costs. It determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per Satak for Sali class of land, modifying the judgment to that extent. The court affirmed all other directions in the judgment under challenge.
Issues: The main issue was the valuation of the acquired land for the Katwa Thermal Power Project. The court also considered the relevance of purpose of acquisition, deductions for development costs, and the application of the highest exemplar test in determining compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of assessing market value, deductions for development costs, and the relevance of purpose of acquisition in determining compensation. It emphasized the need to consider the highest exemplar and make reasonable deductions based on the nature of the land and other attendant circumstances.
Final Decision: The judgment and order under challenge were modified to fix the market price of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per Satak for Sali class of land. The appeals were allowed in part and stood disposed of.
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Debayan Bera, Uttam Kumar Mondal, Maitree Roy, Bhaskar Mitra, Sujit Sankar Koley, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Partha Pratim Roy, Mukteswar Maity, Prabir Rej, Pranab Kumar Das, Supratim Dhar, Dhananjay Nayek, Advocates.
For the Petitioners:Debayan Bera, Uttam Kumar Mondal, Maitree Roy, Bhaskar Mitra, Sujit Sankar Koley, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Partha Pratim Roy, Mukteswar Maity, Prabir Rej, Pranab Kumar Das, Supratim Dhar, Dhananjay Nayek, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, J.
These appeals are taken up together by consent of the parties for consideration, as these appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge at Burdwan arising out of reference cases being L.A. case no. 7/11, L.A. 6/11 and L.A. 8/11 respectively under Section 18 of Act 1 of 1894 of Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Land Acquisition Judge (in short L.A. Judge) modified the award passed by the LA Collector Burdwan by enhancing the market price of the acquired land of the petitioners from Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- per satak for Sali class of land.
The present appellants are the successor-in-interest of the original requiring body.
Briefly stated, vast acres of land measuring about 555.895 in the district of Burdwan situated at Mouja Srikhanda, Debkunda and Kashigram, P. S. Katwa was acquired on divers dated upon publication of Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Katwa Thermal Power Project. The land was acquired by the State of West Bengal for and on behalf of West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (In short "WBPDCL"), the original Requiring Body.
The notification in respect of 133.090 acres of land being the subject matter of this appeal was published on 12th May, 2008. On diverse date possession was taken by the State in respect of acquired lands in phases and possession of the said acquired lands was also handed over to WBPDCL on diverse dates.
After obtaining possession, WBPDCL started construction on the said lands but ultimately on the basis of the cabinet decision of the State Government taken on 18th April, 2012, the entire thermal power project at Katwa was transferred to NTPC Limited, the appellants herein The possession of the entire land was delivered back by WBPDCL to L.A. Collector, Burdwan on 16.01.2015 and thereafter the LA. Collector, Burdwan handed over possession of the lands to NTPC Ltd on 24th February, 2015.
The Collector declared the award on 22.02.2009 of Mouza: Srikhanda. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondents filed applications for reference to court under Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The reference case was disposed of on 16th December, 2014. The present appellant, however, became aware of the judgment after they got possession of the land. Three reference cases were heard analogously by the learned LA Judge.
In the aforesaid reference cases Mr. Rastrapati Ghosh the respondent in FAT no. 446 of 2015 (petitioner in L.A. Case no. 7 of 2011) was examined as witness and in the two other reference cases no independent witness was examined but they relied upon the oral evidence of Sri Ghosh and the sale deeds being Exbt.1 to 5 filed by Mr. Ghosh in L.A. Case no. 7 of 2011. Neither the State nor the requiring body adduced any evidence before the reference court.
The learned Judge proceeds on the basis of the evidence adduced by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of himself and others similarly placed. Mr. Ghosh in order to prove his claim for higher compensation relied upon the 5 sale deeds which were marked as Exbt. 1 to 5. They are
| Sl. No. | Particulars of Sale Deed | Measurement of Land | Mouza | Amount |
| Exbt.1 | sale deed no. 3992 | 14 decimals of land Aman which means Sali | Srikhanda | Rs 1,40,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per decimal. |
| Exbt.2 | sale deed No 3887 | 8 cottahs [13 11/50 decimal] Sali land | Srikhanda | Rs. 1,46,000.00 ie., @Rs 11,043.00 per decimal. |
| Exb.3 | sale deed No.3701 | 19.78 decimal of Sali land | Srikhanda | Rs.2,15,000/- ie., @of Rs. 10,869.56 per decimal |
| Exbt.4 | Srikunda | |||
| Exbt.5 | sale deed No.3703 | measuring 22.54 decimal | Srikunda | Rs 2,50,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs. 11,091.39 per decima |
Although no oral evidence was adduced either on behalf of State or the Requiring Body, WBPDCL. However, some documentary evidence were filed on behalf of the State/WBPDCL that were marked as Exbt.A to F. The said exhibits are:
Exhibit A: Copy of award declared by the Collector i
