Judgment This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in L.A. Case No. 1843 of 1988 (V). 2. In a nut-shell, the facts of the case are inter alia that the disputed lands being Dag No. 4202 measuring about O. 61 acres appertaining to C.S. Khatian No. 239 Mouza Kasba, J.L. No. 13. Police Station Kasba, District South 24-Parganas was acquired for the purpose of East Calcutta Area Development project in L.A. Case No. II/3 of 1977-78 and possession was taken on 11th May, 1978. The notification was issued on 18th December, 1983 and the award was signed on 28th October, 1987 by the Land Acquisition Collector, who awarded Rs.66,552.62 p in favour of the referring claimant namely the respondent/cross-objector for the said acquisition of land including S.A. interest, R.C. etc. Against the said award, the respondent/cross-objector filed an application for preference under Section 8 of West Bengal Act, 2 of 1948 read with section of the Act I of 1894 claiming compensation inter alia, as follows :- "(a) That the market value of the land Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) per cottah. (b) That 30% Solatium on the value of land under Section 23(2) of Act I of 1894 read with Act 68 of 1982. (c) That Damage under Section 48A for delay in making the award. (d) That interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. (e) That recurring compensation @ 9% p.a. (f) The additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act @ 12% p.a. from the material date till the date of award on the total value of land. (g) That interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years from the date of possession till the date or payment of award money from the Court. (h) That additional compensation, Interest, damages etc. according to the provision of amended L.A. Act, 1984. (i) Fitting & Fixtures, Foundation and loss of earning Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. (g) That interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years from the date of possession till the date or payment of award money from the Court. (h) That additional compensation, Interest, damages etc. according to the provision of amended L.A. Act, 1984. (i) Fitting & Fixtures, Foundation and loss of earning Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The said reference case was heard by the learned 3rd Court of the Additional Special L.A. Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, who by his judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1989 allowed the said reference case modifying the award passed by the L.A. Collector to the effect that the referring claimant would be entitled to land value of the acquired 'sali' land at the rate of Rs.6,625/- per cottah, rental compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 11th May, 1978 to 7th December, 1983; interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% from 8th December, 1984 till payment and solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value of the land. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the State Government has preferred the present appeal. 4 The respondent also has filed a cross objection alleging inter alia, that the land value should have awarded at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cottah and the L.A. Judge should have assessed the valuation on the basis of the Exhibits No. 6, 6/1, 6/b and 6/c. 5. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, State of West Bengal contends inter alia, that the valuation given by the L.A. Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore was excessive, and relying upon Exhibits A and A/1 contends inter alia, that the valuation given by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper. 6. Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/cross-objector, however, has also challenged the judgment and decree passed by the L.A. Judge, 3rd Court contending, inter alia, that the valuation given by the L.A. Judge was too low, as the proper valuation should have been Rs.25,000/- per cottah since the disputed land, that was acquired, was agricultural in nature and relied upon Exhibits 6 series in support of his contentions. 7. In the proceeding, only three witnesses were examined, two on behalf of the referring claimant and on behalf of the respondent, State of West Bengal. 7. In the proceeding, only three witnesses were examined, two on behalf of the referring claimant and on behalf of the respondent, State of West Bengal. So far as the documents produced by the referring claimant as comparable units being Exhibits No. 6 series are concerned, it would appear from the judgment of the lower Court that the learned Judge had himself held that from Exhibits 6 and 6/a, he found that the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cottah which were similar in nature and also land locked as the disputed land and those lands were far away from the acquired lands which were, however, nearer to the road. The learned Judge further found on discussing Exhibits A and A/1 which were the documents produced by the respondent, State of West Bengal, that the valuation of the lands sold under the Exhibits A and A/1 were too low. Curiously enough the learned Judge making an average of the Exhibits No. 6 and 6/a and Exhibits A and A/1, assessed the valuation of the acquired lands at Rs.6,625/- per cottah which shows that the learned Judge had come to such valuation relying entirely on presumptions and hence such finding cannot be sustained in law. More so, when the nature of land sold by Exhibits No. 6 and 6/a, which were 'sali' (Agricultural) in nature were thus quite different from those of the lands sold under Exhibits A and A/1. It is to be noted here that the acquired lands were also 'sali' (Agricultural) in nature. 8. Accordingly, on a careful consideration of the evidence on record both orally and documentary, we are of the view that the proper valuation of the acquired land per cottah should have been assessed at Rs.20,000/- and the assessment made by the learned Judge was thus in our view too low. 9. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed for the reasons as aforesaid without, however, any order as to costs. The cross-objection is allowed to the extent indicated above, without any order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are modified to the extent as indicated in the body of the judgment. 10. 9. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed for the reasons as aforesaid without, however, any order as to costs. The cross-objection is allowed to the extent indicated above, without any order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are modified to the extent as indicated in the body of the judgment. 10. The respondent/cross-objector will be at liberty to approach the Land Acquisition Collector concerned for assessment of the compensation in the light of this judgment and decree and also in the light of the judgment and decree of the lower Court and the Land Acquisition Collector should assess the same positively within two months from the date of approaching the Land Acquisition Collector, and should pay the amount so assessed within four months thereafter and the time limits so fixed are all mandatory and peremptory. A prayer has been made by Mr. Sengupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/cross-objector regarding release of the Bank Guarantee lying with the learned Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court, in favour of the respondent/cross-objector. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we allow the said prayer. Let the Bank Guarantee lying with the learned Registrar (Appellate Side) be released in favour of the respondent/cross-objector without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties but subject to any decision of higher Court passed in the matter if there be any. Mitra, J. Basu, J. 14.1.1997 It is ordered and decreed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. And it is further ordered and decreed that the decree of the lower Court be and the same is hereby modified to the extent that the proper valuation of the acquired land per cottah should have been assessed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only instead of Rs.6,625/- per cottah. 14. And it is further ordered and decreed on the cross-objection that the respondent/cross-objector shall and do approach the Laud Acquisition Collector concerned for assessment of the compensation and the same will be assessed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only per cottah within two months from the date of approaching him and he shall pay the amount so assessed within four months thereafter. 15. 15. And it is further ordered and decreed that the referring claimant is entitled to get rental compensation @ 9% per annum from 11th May, 1978 to 7th December, 1983, interest @ 9% for one year and 15% from 8th December, 1984 till payment and solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market value of the land. 16. And it is further ordered and decreed that the time limit so fixed are all mandatory and peremptory. And it is further ordered that the bank guarantee lying with the learned Registrar, Appellate Side, be released in favour of the respondent/cross-objector without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties but subject to any decision of higher Court partied in the matter, if there be any.