The market value of the land for the purpose of determining the compensation should be assessed by considering the smallness of the plot, the highest exemplar, and the purpose of acquisition, and by making a deduction for development charges.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

The appeal and the cross-appeal are arising out of a judgment passed in a batch of matters arising out of land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of 1.78 acres of land of Mouza Gopal Nagar under P.S. Panskura.

2. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the learned Additional District and Session Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, district Purba Medinipur enhanced the compensation from Rs.2009/-per decimal as determined by the LA Collector to Rs. 5000/-per decimal. There are 17 land loosers. They have challenged the award of the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. The appellants are the award holders in the said reference.

4. They have prayed for enhancement of compensation based on three title deeds out of which two are situated in Mouza Ryne and one in Gopal Nagar.

5. The learned Trial Judge in deciding the compensation amount had taken into consideration three title deeds namely, deed no. 2619 dated 25th November, 2003 of plot no.939, deed no.2620 dated 25th November, 2003 of plot no.1461 and deed no.3639 dated 1st December, 2003 regarding plot no.939 giving an approximate valuation of Rs.6000/-per decimal.

6. The learned trial Judge disregarded the claim of fixing the compensation @ Rs.35,000/-per decimal as claimed by the land owners on the ground that Exbt. 4 and 5 are in respect of properties situated in Ryan Mauza and the sale transaction disclosed in respect of Mouza Gopalnagar, that is, Exbt.6 is not contiguous to plots covered in Exbt. 4 and 5. Moreover the land details relief upon as an exemplar i.e. Exbt.6, although situated in Gopalnagar Mouza is small and the transaction in relation to the said land had taken place at a point of time when the acquisition proceeding by the Government had already commenced.

7. The land owners are not satisfied with the said enhancement and hence these appeals.

8. The State has filed cross objection in all the appeals. In the cross objections the State has challenged the enhancement, grant of soletium and determination of the compensation relying upon the provisions of the Right to Fare Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).

9. In view of commonality of the issues involved all the appeals and cross appeals are heard together.

10. In assailing the judgement Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned L.A Judge has failed to take into consideration three registered deed of conveyances marked as Exbt. 4, 5 and 6 which are identical, same and/or similar to the lands acquired and could be the best exemplar for the purpose of determination of the compensation amount. It is submitted that the lands sold under those instruments were situated besides the main road and almost in the vicinity and in contiguous area absolutely alike to that of the subject land under acquisition.

11. It is submitted that the reason for disregarding the sale deeds was due to small quantities of land involved and it relates to transaction of smaller plots. It is submitted that smallness of the plot is not a relevant consideration and it is not an absolute proposition that the market value of sale of small plots cannot be considered at all in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage board & Ors. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Ors., reported in 2009(11) SCC 164.

12. It is submitted that the reliance on the instruments by the government cannot be considered to be exemplar having regard to the fact that all those plots are situated far away and at an interior location of the Gopal Nagar Mouza, land locked and not on the road side.

13. It is submitted that the sale transactions disclosed in support of enhancement are all proximate to the date of notification and could be the best guide to decide the sale value of such lands. The locational advantage could not have been disregarded. It is submitted tha