State of West Bengal vs Jaydeb Sadhukhan and Others

R.K. Bag, J.—This appeal at the instance of the appellant/State of West Bengal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st April, 2004 passed by Learned Land Acquisition Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in LRA Case No. 58 of 2000 by which Learned Judge enhanced the amount of compensation.

The claimants/respondents are owners of land measuring 0.122 acre appertaining to plot No. 7417, Khatian No. 4127 and land measuring 0.179 acre appertaining to plot No. 7419, Khatian No. 4174 of Mouza Chanak, P.S. Titagarh, District North 24-Parganas (hereinafter described as acquired land). On 26.03.1991 the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas took over possession of the acquired land under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for the purpose of regularisation of Deepak Nagar Squatters Colony. On 05.02.1998 the said Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas passed an award towards compensation of the claimants in Case No. LA-II/34 of 1990-91. The claimants received the award on protest by reserving their rights to claim further compensation in accordance with law. It is alleged that the acquired land is situated within developed residential locality and has all the amenities of modern life including transport system, education, hospitals etc. The Land Acquisition Collector on behalf of the appellant/State assessed the valuation of the acquired land @ Rs. 7,93,099/- per acre i.e. @ Rs. 13,109.07/- per cottah. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded solatium @ 30% on the land value together with additional compensation @ 12% per annum on the land value for the period from 26.03.1991 to 25.11.1997.

The claimants challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas by way of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Learned Land Acquisition Judge, Barasat. The said reference case being No. 58 of 2000 was disposed of by Learned Land Acquisition Judge on 21.04.2004 by enhancing the valuation of the acquired land @ Rs. 52,800/- per cottah along with statutory allowance or solatium @ 30% on the land value, and additional compensation @ 12% per annum on the entire land value from the date of taking over possession of the land i.e. from 26.03.1991 till the date of the award i.e. 05.02.1998 and interest on the entire amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till 04.02.1999 and thereafter interest @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of the entire amount of compensation. This decision of the Learned Land Acquisition Collector is under challenge in the instant appeal.

It appears from the materials on record that the claimants produced four sale deeds of Mouza Chanak and the R.S. Map of Mouza Chanak for assessment of valuation of the acquired land by Learned Land Acquisition Judge. Similarly, the appellants/State also produced fourteen sale deeds before Learned Land Acquisition Judge to show the valuation of the acquired land. It also appears from record that the nature of 0.122 acre of acquired land is "Kal" i.e. non-agricultural land. Similarly, the nature of 0.179 acre of acquired land is "Dunga" i.e. non-agricultural land. The certified copy of the deeds [Exhibit-A to Exhibit-A(13)] produced on behalf of the appellant/State for assessment of valuation of the acquired land indicate that the nature of the land described in these sale deeds are "Sali" i.e. agricultural land, whereas the acquired land is "Kal" and "Dunga". Since the valuation of "Sali" land i.e. agricultural land cannot be compared with the valuation of non-agricultural land for assessment of valuation of the acquired land, Learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly discarded the valuation of the lands covered under the sale deeds [Exhibit-A to Exhibit-A(13)] produced on behalf of the appellant/State.

It appears from the R.S. Map of Mouza Chanak that the distance of the acquired land from the main road and the distance of plot No. 7835 described under the sale deed dated 22.11.1996 (Exhibit-1) and plot No. 7462 described under the deed dated 28.11.1996 (Exhibit-1a) is almost the same. The other two plots described under deed dated 02.11.1996 (Exhibit-1b) and deed dated 27.09.1996 (1c) are situated at a long distance from the main road situated in the middle of the Mouza. It will, therefore, be wise and prudent on our part to discard the valuation of the deeds dated 02.11.1996 (Exhibit-1b) and the deed dated 27.09.1996 (Exhibit-1c) for the purpose of assessment of the valuation of the acquired land. However, the nature of the acquired land is similar to the nature and character of the land described under the deed dated 22.11.1996 (Exhibit-1) and the deed dated 28.11.1996 (Exhibit-1a). It appears from both the above sale deeds that the land near the acquired land was sold out @ Rs. 47,038/- per cottah and Rs. 57,143/- per cottah in the year 1996. The average valuation of the land described in the above two deeds is almost Rs. 52,800/- which is assessed by Learned Land Acquisition Judge for the purpose of enhancing the award of the Land Acquisition Collector.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the valuation of the land projected by the claimants is in connection with small piece of land, whereas the acquired land is of large area. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the valuation of small plot of land cannot be compared with the valuation of large area of land for the purpose of calculation of market value of the acquired land. Learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 : (1988) 1 JT 529 : (1988) 1 SCALE 484 : (1988) 2 SCC 150 : (1988) 2 SCR 1025 : (1988) 1 UJ 642 and reported in Chaturbhuja Modi and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 234 : (2010) 9 SCR 849 in support of his above contention. It is held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of "Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi" reported in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 : (1988) 1 JT 529 : (1988) 1 SCALE 484 : (1988) 2 SCC 150 : (1988) 2 SCR 1025 : (1988) 1 UJ 642 as follows: "The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents." The Supreme Court has also laid down in paragraph 15 of "Chaturbhuja Modi and Others v. State of Orissa and Another" reported in Chaturbhuja Modi and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 234 : (2010) 9 SCR 849 as follows: "It follows that where the market value of a large block of land is determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used for internal development such as construction of roads, drains, sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in providing other amenities like water, electricity etc." While we fully agree with the above proposition of law we are constrained to hold that there is nothing on record to indicate that the land sold out under deed dated 22.11.1996 (Exhibit-1) and the deed dated 28.11.1996 (Exhibit-1a) is small piece of developed land having amenities like sewerage, road etc. On the contrary, the acquired land is situated in the vicinity of a developed colony and as such the decisions cited on behalf of the appellant/State cannot be applied in the facts of the instant case.

Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents has put forward the argument that the highest valuation of the land sold out in the vicinity of the acquired land should be the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of enhancing the award. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2008 SC 709 : (2008) 2 CLT 723 : (2007) 13 JT 473 : (2007) 14 SCALE 109 : (2008) 2 SCC 568 : (2007) 12 SCR 1120 and reported 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 . In "Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. Faridkot and Others" reported 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 the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as follows: "In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course." In the instant case, the Learned Land Acquisition Judge has taken the average valuation of the land reflected in four deeds produced on behalf of the claimants without accepting the highest market value of Rs. 67,037/- per cottah or even the second highest market value of Rs. 57,143/- per cottah. The highest market value cannot be accepted as the said plot of land is far away from the vicinity of the acquired land as shown in R.S. Map of Mouza Chanak. We are unable to accept even the second highest valuation of Rs. 57,143/- per cottah for assessment of valuation of the acquired land, because the claimants have not filed any cross-objection challenging the decision of the Learned Land Acquisition Judge. In the absence of any cross-objection on behalf of the claimants/respondents, we are not in a position to enhance the amount of compensation by accepting the highest or second highest market value of land for assessment of valuation of the acquired land as contended on behalf of the claimants/respondents.

The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of "Atma Singh v. State of Haryana" reported in Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2008 SC 709 : (2008) 2 CLT 723 : (2007) 13 JT 473 : (2007) 14 SCALE 109 : (2008) 2 SCC 568 : (2007) 12 SCR 1120 is that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when let out in its most advantageous manner. In the instant case, the acquired land is in the vicinity of a colony which is going to be developed for residential purpose and as such the acquired land has the potential value due to its proximity to proposed residential area.

In view of our above findings, we do not find any merit in this appeal. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by Learned Land Acquisition Judge, Barasat on 21.04.2004 in L.R.A. Case No. 58 of 2000 is hereby affirmed.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent down to the Learned Court below along with lower court records and to the Learned Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas for favour of information and necessary action.

The Respondents are at liberty to withdraw the balance of the decretal dues deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court along with accrued interest.

Urgent certified Photostat copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible after compliance with necessary formalities.