Judgment 1. THE State of West Bengal has preferred these appeals against 11 awards made by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd court, Hooghly, on references made under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948) at the instance of the claimant respondents' these respective appeals. The respondents (in I.A. Nos. 813, 814 and 815 of 1967 have filed cross-objections against awards made in their respective reference cases. The respondents in F. A. Nos. 816 to 820 of 1967 have also filed cross-objections along with applications for condonation of delay. 2. BEFORE we consider the merits of the various submissions respectively made on behalf of the State and the claimants, it is necessary to set out some of the relevant facts. On or about 15th September, 1960, the State Government by and order under section 3 (1) of the west Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, had requisitioned certain lands appertaining to different contiguous mouzas including Gaharpur, hajipur, Banipur, Banpara lying on the eastern and western sides of Bandel-Katwa Section of Eastern Railways for construction of Super Thermal Power Station near Tribeni at Bandel. According to the State Government, possession of such lands were taken on 15th of September, 1960. The State Government by a Notification dated 17th August, 1961 had acquired under section 4 (la) of the aforesaid Act the said requisitioned lands. The said lands lying to the east of the Railway lines which were acquired by the aforesaid Notification dated 17th august, 1961, for convenience, have been described as First Sector lands. The State Government by another order under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Act II of 1948 dated 15th February, 1961 had requisitioned for the same purpose some more lands in the aforesaid mouzas on the eastern and western sides of Bandel-Katwa Section of Eastern railways. The State Government by a Notification under Section 4 (la) of the said Act, dated 29th September, 1961 had acquired these lands. The acquired lands on the eastern side of the aforesaid railway lines, for convenience, have been described as Second Sector lands. 3. The State Government by a Notification under Section 4 (la) of the said Act, dated 29th September, 1961 had acquired these lands. The acquired lands on the eastern side of the aforesaid railway lines, for convenience, have been described as Second Sector lands. 3. ON 15th January, 1962 the State government had requisitioned for the aforesaid purpose some more plots of land on the eastern and western sides of the said railway lines and on 20th April, 1964 had acquired them by a Notification made under Section 4 (1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The said acquired lands have been described as Third Sector lands. 4. THE Land Acquisition Collector hooghly had awarded compensation for the different categories of lands in the three sectors on the basis of their valuation in the Rate Report prepared by a land Acquisition Officer, Hooghly. Being not satisfied with the amounts of compensation awarded by the Collector, hooghly for acquisition of their aforesaid plots, the claimants had applied to the Collector for making references to court. The Collector had accordingly under section 8 of the West Bengal Act II of 1948 referred to court the aforesaid land Acquisition Cases. The Learned Additional District judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly who analogously heard the said cases, made awards allowing the said cases in part and enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants in the manner indicated hereinafter. The learned Additional District judge enhanced the compensation payable in respect of Sali and Suna lands situated in the First Sector lands from rs. 7500/- per acre to Rs. 11400/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge assessed compensation for Bhiti and bastu lands in the First Sector at Rs.12150/- per acre instead of Rs. 8250/- per acre determined by the learned Collector. In respect of lands recorded as pathway and pukur, the learned Land Acquisition Judge enhanced compensation payable from Rs. 150/- per acre and Rs. 3750 per acre to Rs. 300/- per acre and Rs.6000/- per acre. 5. IN respect of the Second Sector lands, which were acquired by the Notification dated 29th September, 1961, the Learned Additional District Judge determined Rs. 11400/- per acre as compensation for Sali and Suna lands. While the learned Collector had awarded compensation for Bagan lands in the Second sector at the rate of Rs. 5. IN respect of the Second Sector lands, which were acquired by the Notification dated 29th September, 1961, the Learned Additional District Judge determined Rs. 11400/- per acre as compensation for Sali and Suna lands. While the learned Collector had awarded compensation for Bagan lands in the Second sector at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per acre and for Bastu and Bhiti lands in the said sector at the rate of Rs. 11250/- per acre, the learned Land Acquisition Judge assessed that at the date of acquisition the market value of Bagan, Bastu and bhiti lands was Rs. 30000/- per acre. But the leamed Judge held that the claimants in L. A. Case Nos. 14 and 15 of 1965 were not entitled to receive compensation in respect of their Bagan, Bastu and bhiti lands at the rate exceeding Rs. 21000/- per acre because before the Collector the said claimants had claimed compensation in respect of these lands at the said rate. 6. AS regards the Sali and Suna lands in the Third Sector which were notified for acquisition on 20th April, 1964, the learned Land Acquisition Judge, determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per acre instead of Rs. 9000/- per acre as assessed by the Learned Collector. The valuation of huts and the trees standing on the acquired lands as made by the learned Judge of the court below has not been challenged before us and, therefore, we need not discuss the same. The learned Additional District Judge allowed a small additional amount as development costs in respect of the Second sector lands. The learned Judge of the Court below also awarded in favour of m/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. compensation on account of transport charges for removal of their machineries from the acquired lands and the costs for erection of a tabular structure. The learned Judge of the Court below also awarded in favour of M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. a sum of Rs.73077.50 as compensation for loss of profits due to acquisition of their lands in the First and Second Sector lands at Tribeni. The learned Judge allowed another sum of Rs.312702/- as compensation for excess amounts allegedly spent by M/s. Jayashree tea and Industries Ltd. for acquiring alternative lands at Khardah for establishing their factory. The learned Judge allowed another sum of Rs.312702/- as compensation for excess amounts allegedly spent by M/s. Jayashree tea and Industries Ltd. for acquiring alternative lands at Khardah for establishing their factory. The learned Judge of the court below had purported to award interest, at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation money from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. He however, did not award any statutory allowance in terms of section 23 (2) of the land Acquisition Act. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for appellant not without justification has criticized the method adopted by the learned Additional District Judge for determining the market value of the various categories of lands which were acquired on three different dates. It would have been more satisfactory to separately consider the valuation of each different types of land. We may also point out that the paper-books of these appeals have not been prepared in accordance with the Rules and several necessary papers have been left out. Some of the exhibited documents were also not to be found with the records. But all the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents have submitted that the cases have been pending for a long time and, therefore, remand at this stage would not be in the interests of justice and the learned advocates have prayed that the appeals may be finally disposed of on the basis of the Materials now to be found in the records. We are also of the view that these cases ought to be finally disposed of on the basis of the available papers. 7. THE learned Additional District Judge has correctly pointed out that the market value of the acquired lands ought to be determined by having regard to their existing advantages with all their potentialities and possibilities. In other words their market value would be the price that a willing owner might reasonably expected to obtain from a purchaser for the lands with its advantages and draw backs. The learned land Acquisition Judge found that the acquired lands which were situated on the eastern side of the Bandel Katwa Railway lines were within an industrial area whereas the lands on the western side of the said railway lines were situated in a less developed area. The evidence given by the claimants on the said point was practically one-sided. The learned land Acquisition Judge found that the acquired lands which were situated on the eastern side of the Bandel Katwa Railway lines were within an industrial area whereas the lands on the western side of the said railway lines were situated in a less developed area. The evidence given by the claimants on the said point was practically one-sided. The State did not adduce any evidence to the contrary end on the other hand according to the Rate Report, exhibited by me State (Ext. C), the prices of the lands lying on the eastern side of the said railway lines would be approximately double the price of the lands situated on the western side of the railway lines. The claimants adduced evidence to establish that the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly had revised his award in respect of the Sali and Suna land on the western side of the railway lines by awarding Rs. 7500/- per acre instead of Rs. 3600/- per acre mentioned in the Rate Report. In his said revised award the Collector had added Rs.3900/- per acre to Rs. 3600/- per acre as specified in the Rate Report. But in awarding compensation for the lands which were situated on the eastern side of the railway line the Collector did not similarly enhance the valuation, given in the said Rate Report in respect of the lands on the western side of the Bandel-Katwa Railway Line. The learned Judge of the Court below rightly held that the collector was not justified in determining Rs. 7500/- per acre as price of acquired Suna and Sali lands on the eastern side of the railway line and included within the First Sector. There ought to be upward revision of the market price of eastern side lands given in the said rate Report in the same manner in which the Collector had revised his award in respect of the western side lands. 8. THE learned Judge of the court below has purported to add to the Collector's valuation for Suna and Sali lands in the First Sector an ad-hoc sum of Rs.3900/- per acre which was identical with the amount of increase upon the figure given in the Rate Report allowed by the Collector while valuing certain acquired lands situated on the western side of the railway lines. No doubt, it would have been more appropriate on the part of the learned Judges of the court below to allow proportionate increase in the price of Sali and Suna lands on the eastern side of the railway lines according to the same percentage in which the Collector had revised the value per acre given in the Rate Report of the land on the western side of the railway line. But we are not inclined to interfere with the learned Judge's determination of the price of the Sali and suna lands at Rs. 11400/- per acre. In the first place, the State which has preferred these appeals cannot possibly feel at all aggrieved by the said ad-hoc increase made by the learned Judge of the court below in determining the market value of the aforesaid lands; because in case the increase in the price per acre of Sali and Suna lands in the eastern side of the railway lines had been allowed in the same proportion in which the Collector in his revised award had enhanced the price of said category of the lands on the western side of the railway lines, then the compensation payable to the claimant towards market value of their Sali and Suna lands situated on the eastern side of the railway lines would have been still higher, The claimants themselves have not filed appeals or cross-objections on the said point of determination of market value of suna and Sali lands in the First Sector at the rate of Rs. 11400/- per acre. Some of the claimants, however, who have filed cross-objections feel aggrieved because the learned Judge by invoking section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act has declined to award the compensation for market value of their lands at the rates per acre determined by the Judge himself. We would hereinafter consider whether said section 25 has any manner of application to these cases. A de novo determination of the market value of such Sali and Suna lands might have necessitated remand which none of the parties want. We have already recorded that both sides have prayed for finally concluding the cases. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the finding of the learned Judge of the court below that the market value of Sali and Suna lands in the first sector ought to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 11400/- per acre. We have already recorded that both sides have prayed for finally concluding the cases. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the finding of the learned Judge of the court below that the market value of Sali and Suna lands in the first sector ought to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 11400/- per acre. For the same reason, we do not also propose to interfere with the learned Additional District Judge's determination of enhanced rates of compensation for Bhiti, Bagan and Pukur lands situated in the First Sector. When the market value of the solid lands is enhanced, the valuation ought to be enhanced in respect of Pukur or tank whose market price is usually assessed at half the rate determined for solid lands. The amount of compensation awarded for the acquired pathway was very small, and no argument has been made in respect of the same. 9. THE learned Judge has added the same amount of Rs, 3900/- to Rs,. 8050/-per acre fixed by the learned Collector as the price for the acquired Bhiti and bagan lands in the First Sector. For the aforesaid reasons, we also maintain the rate of Rs. 12150/- per acre fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge for bhiti and Bagan lands included in the first Sector. We propose to separately consider the compensation payable in respect of Bagan, Bhiti and Bastu lands acquired by the Second Notification dated 29th September, 1961. 10. THE Learned Land Acquisition Judge has awarded compensation at the same rate of Rs. 11400/- per acre in respect of Sali and Suna lands situated in the Second Sector which were acquired by subsequent notification under section 4 (la) of the aforesaid Act dated 29th September, 1961. The compensation in respect of such Sali and Suna lands in the Third Sector has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per acre. Having already sustained the learned Judge's determination of compensation payable in respect of the Sali and Suna lands in the First Sector we are bound to also uphold his aforesaid determination of valuation in respect of the same class of land included in the Second and Third sectors. The Third Sector lands were acquired by Notification dated 20th April, 1964. Therefore, the small percentage of increase allowed by the learned Judge in respect of Sali and Suna lands in the third Sector was justified. The Third Sector lands were acquired by Notification dated 20th April, 1964. Therefore, the small percentage of increase allowed by the learned Judge in respect of Sali and Suna lands in the third Sector was justified. We accordingly maintain the rates of compensation awarded for Sali and Suna lands in all the three sectors as made by the learned Judge of the Court below. We next proceed to consider whether the learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30000/- per acre for Bagan, Bastu and Bhiti lands situated in the second Sector (i. e. covered by the Second Notification under section 4 (la) of the Land Acquisition act, dated 29th September, 1961. It may be noted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge in L. A. Case Nos. 14 and 15 of 1965 had awarded compensation at a rate of Rs. 21000/- per acre on the ground that they cannot get compensation for their lands in excess of the rate claimed by themselves. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Amar Nath Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant, that the learned Judge of the court below was not justified in awarding compensation at the same rate in respect of Bagan, Bastu and Bhiti lands. The learned Judge had relied upon the kobalas (Ext. 3 series) which indicated that in the year 1960-61 the market price of Bhiti, Bagan and Bastu lands was about Rs. 30000/- per acre. The State did not adduce in the court below any evidence about the prevailing land value. The learned Judge has also found that all these lands were situated in a highly industrialized locality. His further finding was that the acquired lands had been already developed for use for industrial purposes. Mr. Banerjee has also contended that in fixing the compensation for the acquired Bagan, bastu, Bhiti lands on the basis of Ext. 3 series, the court below did not give any consideration to the fact that the acquired plots were much larger in area compared to small plots sold by the said exhibited kobalas. In the instant case, some of the claimants had purchased the plots for establishing their factory and such lands were situated in an industrialized area. In fact, M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd., had already taken various steps for establishing a factory on their lands which were acquired. In the instant case, some of the claimants had purchased the plots for establishing their factory and such lands were situated in an industrialized area. In fact, M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd., had already taken various steps for establishing a factory on their lands which were acquired. Therefore, larger plots had special advantages for industrial purposes and were likely to fetch higher price per acre. Accordingly, the above submission of Mr. Banerjee is rejected. 11. AT this stage we may deal with the submission made on behalf of the respondents that in all the cases the learned Land Acquisition Judge ought to have awarded compensation for Sali and Suna lands in the first sector at the uniform rate of Rs. 11400/- per acre and for Bastu, Bagan and Bhiti lands in the second sector at the rate of Rs. 30000/-per acre, he ought to have awarded at further reduced rates per acre compensation for Sali, Suna and also Bastu, bhiti and Bagan lands belonging to M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. the claimants in L. A. Case Nos. 225 and 226 of 1965 and also L. A. Nos. 14 and 15 of 1968. 12. WE uphold the submission of the learned advocate for the respondents that the learned Additional District Judge was not justified in awarding compensation in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 14 and 16 of 1965 and 225 and 226 of 1965 by invoking the provisions of section 25 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge himself found that the notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act served upon these claimants did not give 15 days time to state, inter-alia, the amounts and the particulars of their claims to compensation for the acquisition of their lands. Therefore, said notices were not given in accordance with law. The condition precedent for invoking the stringent provisions of sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act is service of a valid notice under section 9 of the Act. Mr. Therefore, said notices were not given in accordance with law. The condition precedent for invoking the stringent provisions of sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act is service of a valid notice under section 9 of the Act. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the respondents, in this connection rightly relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case Tara Prasad Chaliha v. Secretary of State 34 C. W. N. 323, which inter alia held that the special notice under section 9 (1) of the Act served in the said case being invalid, it was not possible to apply the penal provisions of section 25 in order to prevent the claimant from putting forward his claim before the Judge under the Land Acquisition Act. We respectfully agree with the statement of law laid down in the said reported case and hold that notices served upon the claimants of the present case being not valid, they were hot debarred from receiving compensation according to the market value of similar lands determined by the court. Looked at from another aspect, in the instant case, notices served upon the claimants under section 9 of the Act did not allow clear 15 days time to them to claim compensation and the same constituted a sufficient cause within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Land acquisition Act for allowing the claimants to make claim compensation at higher rates per acre. There is also considerable substance in the other submission of Mr. Chatterjee that sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act does not preclude the claimants from claiming a higher amount under a particular head which would not have the effect of enhancing the total amount of compensation claimed in excess of the aggregate claim made pursuant to notice given under section 9 of the Act. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that even in case his clients were awarded compensation in respect of market value of the acquired lands at the rate per acre found by the learned Land acquisition Judge himself, the aggregated compensation payable to them under all the heads would not exceed their total claim as made before the learned land Acquisition Collector towards the market value of their lands at the full rates determined by him. Section 25 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act did not stand as a bar and all the claimants ought to receive compensation for their land value at the full rates per acre determined by the court below. The cross-objection therefore, would succeed to the above extent. We now proceed to consider whether the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly was justified in awarding in favour of the claimants M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. compensation for purported loss of their profit on account of the alleged delay in commencing production at their factory upon alternative lands purchased at Khardah, 24 parganas, We also propose to examine whether the compensation awarded by the court to the said company towards higher price paid for purchasing the said factory lands at Khardah ought to be sustained. At this stage we may record that even the learned advocate for the respondents has not justified awarding of compensation towards payment of brokerage by the company for purchasing the said lands at Khardah. 13. THE general principle is that section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides complete indemnity to a person whose land is compulsorily acquired. The different clauses of section 2 (1) of the Act give effect to this principle by enumerating the heads under which compensation may be awarded (vide in baroda Prasad v. Secretary of State for India, 25 C.W.N. 677. In other words the owner is entitled to receive as compensation the value of the land to him whatever it might be. Whether in addition to the market value of land the owner of the acquired land is entitled to additional compensation under any other head would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. We propose to hereinafter discuss the circumstances under which the court may apply the principle of reinstatement to compensate the owner of the acquired land. The court under clause (4) of subsection (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act may take into consideration the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable in any combined use of land, machinery labour and skill and is not compensated by paying for the land or machinery (vide State of West Bengal v. T. N. Gupta, A. I. R. 1959 Cal. 65. 65. When the loss of income complained of is less of the income which the owner was getting from the land itself, the price of the land should be fixed on the basis of such loss of income and the owner is not entitled to receive anything in addition to the market value of land (see Secretary of State v. Rawat Mull nopany, A. I. R. 1938 Pat. 618 I. L. R. 17 pat. 760, Provincial Government v. Oke brother's A. I. R. 1947 Nagpur 192. 14. IT is well settled that the persons interested are entitled to compensation for such injurious affection only in respect of damages directly consequent on taking of the land under statutory power (see Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn., Vol. VII, paragraph 320. When loss of such earning or profit is not proximate but a remote one, the court may legitimately decline to take into consideration such loss for the purpose of awarding additional compensation to the deprived owner. The decided cases also indicate that separate compensation for such loss of income or profit would be taken into consideration when the property or any business or industry situated upon such land was actually earning profits or that there was immediate and reasonable prospect of earning such profit (see Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Secretary of State, A. I. R. 1927 Cal. 357 madhab Gobinda Ray v. Secretary of state A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 826 I. L. R. 56 Cal. 819 and Land Acquisition Officer. Jamnabai A.I.R. 1946 bom. 142 - 47 Bombay L. R. 853.On the other hand, if on the date of acquisition the person interested had merely purchased the land with the intention to set up a factory or business and all the necessary steps had not yet been taken to realise the special value that the land possessed and had no running business or factory, the courts have usually declined to award additional compensation for injurious affection of his future earning or profit from such contemplated business or factory. Where there was no installed factory or business on the acquired land, loss of earning or profit of a business which might have been started in future would be too remote to justify award in additional compensation under clause (4) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (See observations of the Judicial Committee in the case of Pastoral finance Association Ltd. v. The Minister A. I. R. 1914 P. C. 283. In case, additional earning of profit was expected from the future use of land, the said special value might be taken into consideration for assessing the market price of the land. Thus, the profitability of the land would be reflected in the market value of the land (vide Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. III, paragraph 324. 15. IN order to decide whether as a result of the acquisition of their plots of land at Tribeni earning of profit from the proposed factory of the claimant, m/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. had been directly affected, we may now proceed to examine the evidence on record. We are unable to agree with the trial court that as a result of the acquisition, the earning of profit of the said company had been injuriously affected. The court below had over-looked that the plots in question in the first sector were requisitioned on 15th September, 1960 under section 3 (1) of the west Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act and on two subsequent dates the remaining lands were requisitioned and thereafter all the plots had been acquired under section 4 (la) of the said Act. After their plots were requisitioned there was no further prospect of the earning any profit in near future by installing a factory upon the said plots. Therefore, in considering whether the earning of M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. was injuriously affected, the relevant date would be the date of the notification under section 4 (la) of the said Act. Steps if any, taken by the company for erection of their factory at Tribeni after their plots have been already requisitioned under section 3 of the West Bengal Act II of 1948 would not also be relevant. The court also cannot rely upon the oral evidence adduced by the claimant company about the alleged verbal assurances given for release of the said plots. In fact, the plots were never derequisitioned. The court also cannot rely upon the oral evidence adduced by the claimant company about the alleged verbal assurances given for release of the said plots. In fact, the plots were never derequisitioned. There were also no documentary evidence of any such proposal for derequisitioning. Further, neither at the date of requisition of the plots nor on the date of their acquisition the claimant company's factory had been fully established. Sri S. N. Somani, Financial Manager of the said company, P. W. 4, had stated in his examination-in-chief that some time in the year 1960 lands near Tribeni Railway station had been purchased for putting up a factory for manufacture of superphosphate and sulphate acid. According to P. W. 4 a tubular structure had been put up and boilers and machineries had been purchased for erection of the factory. In his cross-examination the P. W. 4 however, admitted that by December, 1960, they had purchased their machineries and in January, 1961 they had come to know that a part of their plots of land at Tribeni would be acquired. As early as January, 1961 the claimant M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. according to the witnesses examined on behalf of the company, had entered into possession of their alternative lands at Khardah District 24-Parganas, although kobalas in respect of the said lands were not executed until May/June, 1961. Thus, since January, 1961 the claimant company itself had started taking steps for establishing their factory at Khardah and in November, 1961 the said factory at Khardah was commissioned. Evidence given by P. W. 4, Asfar Ali. Labour controller and P. W. 6 Sri S. N. Banerjee, an employee of the company would indicate that the land acquired by the company at Tribeni had been levelled and some machineries had been alleged carried to the said plots. Since the factory had not been fully established on the date of acquisition, no income or profit was being actually derived by the company therefrom and there was also no immediate or reasonable prospect of earning profit in near future. 16. WHILE determining the alleged loss, of earning by the claimant company the court below had purported to rely upon the company's balance-sheets for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 (Exts. 10, 10a. 16. WHILE determining the alleged loss, of earning by the claimant company the court below had purported to rely upon the company's balance-sheets for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 (Exts. 10, 10a. and 10b) but according to the evidences given on behalf of the claimant company, as a result of the acquisition production from their super-phosphate and sulphuric acid factory had been delayed and in November, 1961 their factory at khardah had been started. Therefore, although we ourselves had no opportunity to look into the balance-sheets (exts. 10 series) which were not found with the records of the appeals. We fail to see any relevancy of the balance sheets of the company for the periods prior to the date of commencing the factory at Khardah, i.e. November, 1961. Thus, there was no reliable evidence for determining whether in fact the company had suffered any loss of its earning directly as a result of acquisition of their lands at tribeni. Further, while determining the market value, the court had once taken into consideration the potential advantage of these plots as factory sites and had determined compensation at higher rates and in addition had also awarded compensation for development. Therefore, we conclude that the court below had erred in awarding additional compensation to M/s. Jayashree Tea and industries Ltd. upon consideration of their alleged loss of future earning from a factory which had not yet been fully installed and was not a running concern. We accordingly hold that the compensation claim for loss of profit was not sustainable either upon the principle of reinstatement or that of injurious affection. The learned Additional Land Acquisition Judge in determining compensation payable to M/s. Jayashree Tea and industries Ltd. has also taken into consideration the difference between the amounts awarded as compensation to the said company towards market value of its lands at Tribeni which had been acquired and the prices paid for purchasing alternative lands at Khardah. The learned Additional District Judge has thereby purported to apply the principle of reinstatement in assessing the said additional compensation payable to the claimant company for higher price paid for purchasing their lands at Khardah. According to the learned Additional District Judge, because of acquisition of their factory lands at Tribeni the claimant company had to incur such additional expenditure by purchasing for their factory at higher price alternative lands at Khardah. According to the learned Additional District Judge, because of acquisition of their factory lands at Tribeni the claimant company had to incur such additional expenditure by purchasing for their factory at higher price alternative lands at Khardah. According to the learned Judge of the court below, the claimant company had paid Rs. 630040/- as the total price for acquiring the lands at khardah while Rs. 290338/-, had been awarded as aggregate compensation towards the market value of their plots of land at Tribeni. The differential amount was therefore Rs. 312702/ -. The court below somewhat arbitrarily split up the said amount as additional compensation in the different land acquisition cases relating to the claim of the claimant company. M/s. Jayashree Tea and industries Ltd. 17. IN determining compensation, the principle of reinstatement is usually invoked when the income derived from a property or its market price would not constitute a fair basis for awarding compensation to a person whose land is compulsorily acquired. "it is not possible to give exhaustive catalogue of all cases where the owner is compensated to enable him to replace the land or premises compulsorily taken" (vide Crips on compensation, 5th Edition, quoted at pages 336-337 of the report in the case of A and B Taxies Ltd. v. The Secretary of State for Air, 1922 (2) K. B. 328. The principle of reinstatement is called in aid generally when the acquired land was being used for a purpose which was not of a commercial nature and there was no general demand or market for lands or for the purpose. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, vol. VII paragraphs 303 and 304. The reinstatement value is awarded in case of acquisition of land with churches, schools or hospitals on it or buildings devoted to general, religious and charitable purposes. 18. THE special adaptability or peculiar natural advantage for a particular purpose have been sometime taken into consideration in determining compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of a house or a special business premises (see the Division Bench decision of Sir ashutosh Mookerjee and Buckland JJ. in the case of Baroda Prasad, The Chairman, Serampore Municipality v. The secretary of State for India, 25 C. W. N. 677 - A. I. R. 1922 Cal. 386. In the said case the principle of reinstatement was applied in case of acquisition of municipal drain. in the case of Baroda Prasad, The Chairman, Serampore Municipality v. The secretary of State for India, 25 C. W. N. 677 - A. I. R. 1922 Cal. 386. In the said case the principle of reinstatement was applied in case of acquisition of municipal drain. We respectfully agree with the latter Division Bench decision of Rama prasad Mookerjee and Renupada Mukerjee, JJ. in the case of Province of Bengal v. Raja of Jhargram, A.I.R. 1955 Cal. 393, that the special character of the use to which the premises had been put to is one of the important tests for deciding whether the principle of reinstatement ought to be invoked to assess the compensation payable. It is the nature of the business which is to be displaced that requires first consideration. Bonafide intention to be reinstated and reasonableness of costs of such reinstatement are also relevant. There is no warrant for the view that in every case of compulsory acquisition of land which was already being used or was intended to be used for industrial purposes, the compensation ought to be assessed according to the principles of reinstatement. Banks L. J. in the case of A and B Taxies ltd. v. The Secretary of State for Air, I.R. 1922 (2) K. B. 328 had inter alia observed that it must depend on the facts whether in a particular case the principles of reinstatement would apply and the material consideration would seem to be first the nature of the business which is to be displaced. In the case of A and B Taxies Ltd. v. The Secretary of State for Air (supra) there was no other place in Dublin which the claimant could have acquired so long as their premises was to remain under requisition. Thus, in the said reported-case the requisitioned premises had a special suitability for combined use as a garage for taxi cabs, repairing shop and also as a sales room for motor Car parts and accessories. The owners in the said case had incurred costs to purchase an alternative site and for fitting it up as a garage. They had carried on business until they sold the substituted site at loss when their property was released from requisition. The owners in the said case had incurred costs to purchase an alternative site and for fitting it up as a garage. They had carried on business until they sold the substituted site at loss when their property was released from requisition. The Court of appeal held that the said loss incurred in respect of the substituted premises was a consequence of requisitioning of their premises and, therefore, the same was a direct loss of damage and was accordingly to be compensated. 19. THE Division Bench in the case of province of West Bengal v. Raja of Jhargram (supra) had also considered the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeal and other authorities but had declined to apply the principle of reinstatement to the facts of the case before them. M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. had claimed and the court below has also awarded compensation according to market value of their plots. The court below also considered the awarded compensation for structures, development costs etc. the learned Judge of the court below did not further hold that the compensation assessed according to the market price of the company's lands did not constitute a fair basis for assessing the value of the acquired lands. The said precondition for applying the said principles was thus absent in the present case. We have already noted that the foundation for applying the principles of reinstatement is that unless costs are awarded for replacing or substituting the acquired property, the owner cannot be placed in as favourable position as he was before. Therefore the court below was not justified in awarding compensation according to the principles of reinstatement. We have already found that the company's plots were first requisitioned and thereafter permanently acquired, the claimant company was still erecting its factory and the production in the factory had not yet started when possession of its lands were taken by orders made under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. Further there was practically no evidence adduced by the company and no finding by the court below that the additional costs incurred for purchase of lands at Khardah were reasonable. Mr. Further there was practically no evidence adduced by the company and no finding by the court below that the additional costs incurred for purchase of lands at Khardah were reasonable. Mr. S. N. Somani, P. W. 4 the finance Manager of the said company, had merely deposed in the court below that for its factory the Company had a special need for lands having easy access to river, railways and roads and their lands at Tribeni had the advantages of all the aforesaid circumstances. Proximity to water and easy rail and road connection would perhaps be desirable in case of practically every kind of large industry and therefore the said alleged advantages of the acquired lands at Tribeni did not constitute the said lands as "special business premises. " 20. THERE is also no evidence that other alternative suitable lands for company's factory were not available any-where else at lower price. Compared to tribeni, District Hooghly where acquired lands were situated, Khardah was much more closer to Calcutta and it is common knowledge that prices of lands nearer to Calcutta and its neighbourhood were generally higher. Thus, the laimant, M/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. did not prove that it had taken the most suitable and convenient alternative lands which could be obtained without incurring very exorbitant expenses. We conclude that the claimant, m/s. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd. was not entitled to receive compensation by way of reinstatement the differential prices paid for purchasing alternative lands at Khardah. In view of section 6 (2) read with sub-section (1) and (2) (a) of section 7 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, the court below has not awarded according to section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act a statutory allowance of 15% on the market value of the acquired plots of land. Two Division Bench decisions of this court in the cases of Bijoli Prova nandi Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal A. I. R. 1977 Cal. Two Division Bench decisions of this court in the cases of Bijoli Prova nandi Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal A. I. R. 1977 Cal. 64 and Snehalata bhowmik v. Land Acquisition Collector, west Bengal 86 C. W. N. 813, have inter alia held that the said exclusion of payment of statutory allowance upon market value of compensation payable for acquisition, of lands under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, these reported decisions have declared section 7 (2) (a) and section 8 (2) of the west Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 ultra vires. In view of the said binding precedents, we hold that the claimants are entitled to receive statutory allowance on market value of the acquired lands. 21. WE now take up the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the respondents in F. A. Case nos. 816 to 820 of 1967. The said applications have not been seriously opposed. We also find that sufficient cause has been made out for extending, the time for filing these cross-objections. Therefore, we propose to allow the said application for condonation of delay. 22. WE accordingly dispose of the appeals and the cross-objections in the following manner. We modify the judgments and the awards made in the respective reference cases by directing that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of 15% on the market value of the acquired plots of land in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. We further modify the awards passed in l. A. Case Nos. 225 of 1965, 226 of 1965, 15 of 1965' and 14 of 1965 corresponding to F. A. Case Nos. 816 to 820 of 1967 by directing that the claimants will be entitled to receive compensation for market value of their Sali lands at the rate of Rs.11400/- per acre and for their Danga, Bagan and Bastu lands at the rate of Rs.30000/- per acre. We further modify the awards passed in the said L. A. Case nos. 225 of 1965, 226 of 1965, 15 of 1965 and 14 of 1965 by setting aside the sums awarded to the claimants on account of brokerage, loss of profit and change of place. We further modify the awards passed in the said L. A. Case nos. 225 of 1965, 226 of 1965, 15 of 1965 and 14 of 1965 by setting aside the sums awarded to the claimants on account of brokerage, loss of profit and change of place. The compensation awarded in all the reference cases will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the lands to the date of payment. There will be no order as to costs. Awards modified. Cross-objections partly allowed.