Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 300 (CAL)

Nikhilesh Ganguli v. State of West Bengal

1997-08-01

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Satyabrata Sinha

body1997
JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J.: This appeal arises out of a judgment and Award passed by Sri D. N. Sen, 1st Additional Special L.A. Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas, dated 4th July, 1985. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. 2. The lands in question were acquired in terms of the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The said lands were measuring 61 Cottahs and nature of the lands were Sali, Bagan and Tank and the same were situated at Mouza Baishnabghata, J.L. No. 28, P.S. Jadavpur, District 24-Parganas. The requisition was made on 31.5.66 and possession was taken of a major portion of the said lands on that date and possession of the rest of the land was taken on 28.5.76. A notification under s. 4 of the said Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 6.12.77 and an Award made by the Collector on 11.6.80, wherein market value of the lands requisitioned together with 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6% per annum for two years five months from 6.12.77 to 5.5.80 was granted. Recurring compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from 31.5.66 to 20.9.68 and 20.8.71 to 5.12.77 was also granted. It is stated that the order of stay was obtained from this court by some of the affected parties. On a reference made by the petitioner, the impugned judgment and award has been passed, whereby and whereunder the learned Land Acquisition Judge awarded the market value of the entire lands at a higher rate. The learned Judge also granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 6.12.77 from the date of acquisition, till realisation of the said amount. The Rental compensation for the period of requisition was determined at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till 5.12.77 on the enhanced market value and to the aforementioned extent, the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector was modified. 3. Mr. Baksi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised four contentions in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel submits that the learned Judge omitted to award compensation at market value and interest thereupon according to law. 3. Mr. Baksi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised four contentions in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel submits that the learned Judge omitted to award compensation at market value and interest thereupon according to law. The learned counsel further submits that interest ought to have been paid at the rate of 9% per annum for one year i.e. from 6.12.77, the date of acquisition till 5.12.78 and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 6.12.78 upto the date of payment of excess amount of the compensation over the Collector's Award. He further submits that the compensation for requisitioning period at the rate of 9% per annum for the entire period from the date of possession till 5.12.77 also ought to have been granted. He has further submitted that the appellants are entitled to interest on such rental compensation according to law from the date of possession upto the date of payment and in support of his aforementioned contention reliance has been made to Abhay Singh Surana and Ors. vs. Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 2177 . 4. Nobody appears on behalf of the State to oppose this appeal. 5. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in view of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, the petitioner would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% per annum. There however, cannot also be any doubt that the appellant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the facts of the case i.e. from 6.12.70 on which date the lands in question were acquired till 5.12.78 and thereafter they would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum upto the date of payment on the excess amount of compensation which would not only include the market value but also solatium over the Collector's Award. We are also of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel to the effect that the appellant would be entitled for compensation for the requisitioning period at the rate of 9% for the entire period from the date of taking over of possession which is as noticed hereinbefore till 5.12.77, is correct. However, we are unable to accept that the petitioner-appellant would be entitled to interest on rental compensation. However, we are unable to accept that the petitioner-appellant would be entitled to interest on rental compensation. The appellants are only entitled to solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. 6. In Abhay Singh Surana's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the provisions of requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. In that case, no compensation was payable in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In this case, admittedly, compensation is payable in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Only because possession had been taken on acquisition of land, the appellants would be entitled to interest, but it cannot be said that only because he has been deprived of possession during the aforementioned period, apart from interest they would also be entitled to a compensation by way of rent or otherwise. In fact in Abhay Singh Surana's case (supra) itself, also interest was paid as would appear from paragraph 4 of the said judgment. Although for the period during which the property was under requisition, it was obligatory on the part of the State to pay compensation on yearly basis, but keeping in view the fact that this court granted an order of stay for which, the State cannot be blamed, we are of the opinion that the learned Collector has rightly refused to grant any interest for that period. In the instant case we have already directed payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 6.12.78 and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to any further interest. 7. All payments should be made at an early date and preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore; but as nobody appears on behalf of the State, there will be no order as to costs. B. Bhattacharya, J.: I agree, Appeal allowed in part.