State of West Bengal vs Goutam Dey and Others

Asha Arora, J.—A batch of four appeals being First Appeal Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 108 of 2004 filed by the State of West Bengal/appellant arise out of a common judgment dated 19.11.2001 and decree rendered by the Land Acquisition Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in L.R.A. case Nos. 63, 64, 65, and 66 of 2000(V). By the impugned judgment and decree the aforesaid land acquisition reference cases have been allowed and the valuation of the acquired land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 11,922/- per cottah has been enhanced to the extent of Rs. 28,168/- per cottah. The referring claimants have also been granted other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Being aggrieved, the appellant/State of West Bengal, the opposite party in the lower Court brought the matter in appeal against the enhancement of the amount of compensation.

The backdrop of the case in brief is that the claimants filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Act against the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (for brevity referred to as the L.A. Collector) in respect of acquisition of land vide notification dated 15.01.1997 under Section 4(1) of the Act in Mouza Chandanpukur, J.L. 2 P.S.-Titagarh in the District of North 24-Parganas for the purpose of ''Barrackpore Nagar Post-50 Squatters Colony'' project. The claimants contended that the valuation of the acquired land has not been properly assessed by the L.A. Collector who did not consider the prevailing market price on the material date of notification. According to the referring claimants, the amount of compensation being inadequate called for enhancement.

The opposite party being the State of West Bengal contested the claim of the referring claimants.

To substantiate their claim before the Land Acquisition Judge, the claimants produced certified copies of two sale deeds dated 07.06.1996 and 30.10.1996 whereas the opposite party relied on the certified copies of 9 sales deeds all pertaining to the year 1996. The aforesaid certified copies of the sales deeds were admitted in evidence on consent of the parties. The impugned judgment reveals that the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 28,168/- per cottah with the following observation: "The valuation should have been done on the rate of the material date of notification but the valuation assessed by L.A. Collector was for the year 1996. In the circumstances, an average value of the said sale deeds of both the parties may be accepted as guiding factor to assess the market value of the acquired land". Holding thus, the reference cases were allowed and higher compensation was awarded only on the basis of an average value of the various sales deeds produced by the parties without considering any other aspect of the matter.

Mr. Mahata, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the valuation of the acquired land has not been correctly assessed by the L.A. Judge who committed arithmetical error in calculation. It has also been canvassed that the Reference Court did not consider whether the land covered by the sale deeds produced by the claimants is in the vicinity of the acquired land. To buttress his submissions Mr. Mahata placed reliance on the case of Shaji Kuriakose and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 6 AD 403 : AIR 2001 SC 3341 : (2001) 7 JT 4 : (2001) 5 SCALE 367 : (2001) 7 SCC 650 : (2001) AIRSCW 3186 : (2001) 6 Supreme 243 . Reference has also been made to the decision reported in Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd., etc. Vs. Om Prakash and Others, etc., (2009) 1 CLR 805 : (2009) 4 JT 461 : (2009) 2 SCALE 219 : (2009) 4 SCC 719 : (2009) 1 SCR 912 : (2009) AIRSCW 4258 : (2009) 4 Supreme 39 .

On the other hand, Mr. Bera, the leaned Counsel for the claimants/respondents argued that there is nothing on record to show that the L.A. Collector complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 19(1)(d) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which provides that in making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Court, in writing under his hand, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 , learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents contended that the method of determining the quantum of compensation and the market value of the acquired land on the basis of average price paid under different sale transactions is not proper and should not have been adopted by the Reference Court.

We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties with reference to the decisions cited. We have also taken note of the slipshod manner in which the L.A. Judge arrived at the decision without sound reasoning. It appears from the impugned judgment that the value of the acquired land has been assessed on the basis of an average price of the sale deeds of the parties without considering the essential criteria which should be taken into account for such determination. No reason has been assigned for accepting the sale deeds/sales reference for assessing the value of the acquired land. At this juncture, it is significant to refer to Section 23(1) of the Act which provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the acquired land under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of Sub-Section (1) of the Act. The material date of notification, in the instant case, is 15.01.1997 whereas the sale deeds produced by the parties relate to the year 1996. This is one aspect of the matter. In the case law reported in Shaji Kuriakose and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 6 AD 403 : AIR 2001 SC 3341 : (2001) 7 JT 4 : (2001) 5 SCALE 367 : (2001) 7 SCC 650 : (2001) AIRSCW 3186 : (2001) 6 Supreme 243 cited on behalf of appellant, the Apex Court held that comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of market value of the acquired land. However, the comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are to be considered on the basis of which compensation can be awarded, namely, (1) the sale must be a genuine or a bona fide transaction, (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) the land covered by the sale deed must be similar to the acquired land and (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these conditions are satisfied then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. If there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by the sales and the acquired land, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for the acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending on the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.

The impugned judgment does not reflect that any of the above mentioned factors were looked into and discussed while determining the quantum of compensation and the market value of the acquired land. Palpably, the decision of the Reference Court is not supported by any reasons. It is evidently a lackadaisical judgment. There is no material before us to decide the appeal on merit one way or the other. A judgment dehors reasoning is not sustainable.

In the circumstances, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh hearing and reasoned decision in accordance with law.

Consequently, the appeals are allowed with no order as to cost.

The impugned judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in L.R.A. Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of 2000(V) are set aside.

The aforesaid L.R.A. cases are remanded to the Reference Court for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law after taking into account the evidence already on record. In the event the parties choose to adduce fresh evidence, they shall be permitted to do so without granting any adjournment.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion touching the merits of the case. All the points raised by the parties are left open for adjudication by the Trial Court.

Considering the fact that the case is a very old one, the learned Judge is requested to dispose of the matter on priority basis within three months from the date of communication of this judgment.

L.C.R. along with copy of judgment shall be sent immediately to the Lower Court.

Interim order if any, stands vacated.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties subject to compliance of requisite formalities.