JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. The above appeal was heard by a division bench comprising of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Tandon and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Gangopadhyay. Their lordships delivered separate judgments on 19th August, 2020. They differed. Basically, the difference was on two points. Whether the respondent/cross objector was entitled to get compensation in the form of interest from 4th November, 1959 to the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 i.e. 21st July, 2006? Secondly, whether for the purpose of valuation the subject land was to be valued at Rs.42,42,424/-per acre or Rs.35,79,973.66/-per acre?

2. Whereas Mr. Justice Tandon was of the view that compensation was payable for the aforesaid period, Mr. Justice Gangopadhyay opined that compensation was not payable. Mr. Justice Tandon valued the land at Rs.42,42,424/-per acre whereas according to Mr. Justice Gangopadhyay it was Rs.35,79,973.66/-per acre.

3. These points of difference having arisen, the said bench referred the matter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for an appropriate order.

4. By his order dated 10th March, 2021, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice referred the matter to me as the third judge.

5. Being the third judge, my jurisdiction as I perceive it, is either to agree with the view of Mr. Justice Tandon or with the view of Mr. Justice Gangopadhyay on each of the above two issues. By the nature of the reference, there is no scope of my partly agreeing with one view and partly not or expressing a third view in the matter.

6. The facts are important and need to be stated shortly but sufficiently. The state government had proposed to acquire the subject shali and danga land at Mouza Noapara, P.S. – Noapara under the West Bengal Land Development Planning Act, 1948. The purpose was to create a colony for squatters who were occupying the area as immigrants from erstwhile East Pakistan. The proposal was to name it Noapara Scheme-II Post Squatters Colony.

7. The material date is 4th November, 1959 when the government is said to have taken possession of the land.

8. It appears that proceedings under the said Act were not undertaken and the land was left like that with the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation department of the government.

9. After court proceedings were initiated by the respondent/cross objector, a fresh proceeding for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was started. On 21st July, 2006 the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published. On 20th August, 2008 the Collector published his award.

10. The respondent/cross objector did not accept the award and challenged the same by way of a reference case before the learned Land Acquisition Judge, 3rd Additional District Judge, Barasat. The learned court delivered its judgment on 14th November, 2014 enhancing the valuation of the acquired land. He also allowed interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation for 1 year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment. The court assessed the valuation at Rs.34,03,105/-per acre by the average method.

11. The State was not satisfied with this award and filed an application for review which was dismissed by the court on 12th March, 2015. Thereafter, the judgment and decree of the learned District Court dated 14th November, 2014 was appealed against before this court.

12. One issue can be resolved without much difficulty.

13. It relates to the period for which the respondent/cross objector would get interest on the compensation received by them.

14. At the outset, I may note that the date of taking possession of the subject land by the government was admittedly 4th November, 1959. Mr. Justice Tandon has noted that in his judgment. During the course of arguments before me, it was not the case of the appellant State that they had not taken possession of the property on the aforesaid date or had taken its possession at a later date or not taken possession at