IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the referring claimants have the initial burden of proving inadequate compensation, and the Court must carefully analyze the evidence and apply statutory provisions to determine just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. The present appeal at the instance of State of West Bengal is directed against the judgment dated 31st August, 2017 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge –cum- learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in L.R.A. case no. 62 of 2001 and L.R.A. case no. 63 of 2001 and in connection with the appeal, referring claimants have also filed cross-objection claiming inadequacy of compensation, which has been registered as C.O.T. no. 15 of 2019.

2. Under the project of ‘Regularisation of Sulangari Post 50 Squatters Colony’, a chunk of Sali and Doba land measuring an area of 11.42 acres out of total 71.53 acres of land comprising in R.S. Plot nos. 663, 678, 686, 687, 688, 690, 691, 679, 680 and 681 which belonged to referring claimants were acquired in connection with the land acquisition case vide. No. LA.II/22 of 1988-89.

3. Lands under the aforementioned project were acquired under The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (in short, Act-II of 1948) and Notification under Section 4(1a) of Act-II of 1948 was published on 27.12.1996 and possession of the acquired lands were taken on 19.12.1988 and award was made and published on 3.6.1997 under the serial nos. 35, 78, 129, 135, 136, 152, 159, 85, 79, 86 and 128.

4. In the award, LA Collector determined the market value of Sali and Doba Land @ Rs.5,60,076/- per acres and Rs.2,80,038/- per acres respectively. Respondent being the referring claimants having his objection as to the amount of compensation, particularly, as to the determination of market value of lands sought for reference under Section 8 of Act-II of 1948. Consequently, the matter was referred to the learned LA Judge.

5. While answering to the reference, learned LA Judge assessed the market values of Sali land @ Rs.17,600/- per cottah and Doba @ Rs.11,733/- per cottah respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the State of West Bengal (in short, appellant) has preferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the learned LA Judge fell in error in enhancing the value of the land basing upon the deeds produced by referring claimants without applying depreciation on transactions of small pieces of land and learned Judge below committed mistake in allowing rental compensation and in awarding interest in contravention of Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act–I of 1984 (in short, Act-I of 1894) and learned Judge below has applied wrong method to determine the market value on the basis of average of consideration monies shown in one deed referred by Collector and one deed produced by the referring claimants.

6. In the cross-objection, referring claimants alleged that in assessing market value, LA Judge has placed reliance upon the deeds taken into account by the Collector in awarding the compensation but those deeds have not been produced in Court and have not been admitted in evidence.

7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that it is trite law that plaintiff (here, the referring claimants) is to prove his own case and for this proposition, he referred two judgments delivered in cases of Union of India & Ors. vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 and Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) thr. Lrs. & Anr. Vs. Shivnath & Ors. reported in (2019) 6 SCC 82. He argues that in the given case, only one Mihir Mallick testified on behalf of referring claimants and his testimony has been totally destroyed in cross-examination and hence, referring claimants has failed to substantiate his claim. He argues that although deeds produced by referring claimants were admitted in evidence but contents thereof have not been proved by bringing vendors or vendees thereof and hence, learned Judge below has committed mistake in assessing the market value basing upon such deeds and to fortify his such claim, he placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in case of LICI & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4