Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 309 (CAL)

Union of India v. Rajlaxmi Saha

2000-06-29

Joytosh Banerjee, Y.R.Meena

body2000
JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Arbitrator, 24-Parganas and Calcutta on 19th July, 1984 (v). 2. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the Competent Authority that is to say Land Acquisition Collector. 24-Parganas (North), the reference case was filed under section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952(Act 30 of 1952). The appellant of this appeal who was referred as Ref: Claimant filed the proceeding their challenging such compensation awarded by the authority and the learned Arbitrator through the judgement and order impugned enhance the compensation in connection with acquisition of lands in question at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per acre from Rs. 59, 320/- per acre as determined by the Competent Authority. The learned Arbitrator also further allowed Rs. 24,000/- towards the value of structures and buildings on Plot No. 1048 and Rs. 29,000/- towards the amount of compensation payable in respect of trees on the case land. 3. Being aggrieved by such enhancement, the Union of India has preferred the appeal before this Court mainly alleging that the learned Arbitrator erroneously enhanced the valuation of the land structures, without assigning any sufficient reasons how the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority was inadequate, unreasonable and unjust. The respondent filed one cross-objection before this court in connection with the present appeal alleging inter alia that the learned Arbitrator ought to have awarded the value of solid land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and the tank at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre as claimed by the Ref. Claimant. She also raised objection regarding determination of the value of the structures and buildings and the trees on the case land. 4. Admittedly 6.41 acres of land at Mouza Palta within P.S. Noapara and under the Municipal area of North Barrackpore is the subject matter of the proceeding along with one storeyed building and some trees etc. on the case land. Further admitted position is that the learned Arbitrator through the order impugned considerably enhanced the rate of compensation so far as solid land and tank are concerned. He also by the order impugned assessed compensation in connection with the structure on the case land and some fruit bearing and flower trees and plants. on the case land. Further admitted position is that the learned Arbitrator through the order impugned considerably enhanced the rate of compensation so far as solid land and tank are concerned. He also by the order impugned assessed compensation in connection with the structure on the case land and some fruit bearing and flower trees and plants. The appellant Union of India has come before this Court challenging such order on the ground that the order of compensation assessed by the authority was just and reasonable and the learned Arbitrator interfered with such assessment of compensation without assigning any reason. On the other hand, the respondent here has filed the cross-objection alleging that the amount of compensation should have been more. So the only question for our consideration here is whether the enhanced compensation assessed by the learned Arbitrator was just and reasonable and after hearing the learned Counsels for both sides, the further question which is to be determined here is whether the learned Arbitrator was justified in awarding an interest although there is no provision for awarding such interest in the Act, namely, the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) hereafter be referred to as the Act. 5. We have heard submission of Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant has wanted to criticise the fixation of compensation awarded in respect of solid land as well as the tank and in order to show that the learned Arbitrator committed error on this point he has drawn our attention to the facts that in determining the rate of compensation, the authority below placed his reliance on Ext.3 through which .01 decimal tank land in plot No. 1306 of Mouza Palta was sold for Rs.1,500/-. According to him, the lands thus transferred was too small for which the determination of compensation could not be based on such transfer. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate that the authority concerned took into consideration one attested copy of the assessment notes in case No.L.A./XXX/l of 1974/75. According to him, the authority below has placed his reliance improperly as he was to determine the question from the evidence on record and on the basis of the sale of similar lands in the vicinity of the case land. According to him, the authority below has placed his reliance improperly as he was to determine the question from the evidence on record and on the basis of the sale of similar lands in the vicinity of the case land. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that on the basis of the reasons furnished regarding the amount of determination of amount of compensation, the authority below should have determined the rate of compensation for solid land and also for tank at a higher rate. 6. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Arbitrator to find that the learned Arbitrator determined the question of amount of compensation after careful scrutiny of all the relevant facts, circumstances and the evidence on record. He has pointed very correctly that the plots of land which are the subject matters of the case were situated in a compact block just by the western side of the Ghoshpara Road intervened by a road side ditch. He further pointed out referring evidence of P.W.3, Balai Chandra Nayak, that the Ghosh Para Road used to run from Calcutta to Kanchrapara and it was about 60-70 feet wide. It was further mentioned referring to the evidence that Palta railway station was at a distance of 2/3 minutes' walk from the lands in question and that Mahalaksmi Textile Mill was on the opposite side of the case land. There were also markets, Rifle Factory, Metal Steel Factory at a distance of 10 to 12 minutes' walk from the lands in question and Palta College and some Higher Secondary Schools were within a short distance from there. The learned Arbitrator further considered some of the transfer deeds in respect of the lands in the vicinity. In doing so, he clearly observed that the land covered by Ext. 3 was of a very small area for which the value of the same could not be taken to be a comparable unit with that of the lands in question. Regarding another sale deed Ext. 3(a) wherein it was shown that one Kuttah 3 Chatak in Danga in Plot No. 125 of the Mouza in question was sold for Rs. 2,000/- the authority below rightly observed that since the said plot No. 125 covered by Ext. Regarding another sale deed Ext. 3(a) wherein it was shown that one Kuttah 3 Chatak in Danga in Plot No. 125 of the Mouza in question was sold for Rs. 2,000/- the authority below rightly observed that since the said plot No. 125 covered by Ext. 3(a) was not found from the R.S. Map filed for which the price of the said land also could not be compared with that of the disputed lands. 7. Regarding one document filed on behalf of appellant Ext. C through which .056 acre of Dang a land in Plot No. 1124 of Mouza Palta was sold for Rs. 3,500/ - that is to say @ Rs. 63,636/- per acre, the learned Arbitrator clearly observed that the price of plot No. 1124 covered by Ext. C was also comparable with the acquired lands as the former had not the similar advantages which the latter plots had. The learned Arbitrator further pointed out that through a previous award, Ext. 4, Plot Nos. 1036 and 1031 which were danga and bagan on the north western portion of sheet No.3 of Mouza Palta were valued @ Rs. 96, 000/- per acre for determination of compensation as the said plots had a road on the north and on the west intervened by one plot. The authority below further observed that in comparison with the location and situation of the aforesaid two plots covered by Ext. 4 the lands in question were more advantageous as 6.41 acres of land comprised in one compact block having the advantages of a big metal road to its East with several mills, Factories etc. nearby and having pucca structures on plot No. 1048 with trees on the other plots. In our considered opinion in determining the question of market price at the relevant point of time. The authority concerned had the full liberty to take into consideration the determination of rate of compensation by a Competent Authority in connection with lands of same Mouza acquired at the relevant point of time. Suffice it to say that the learned Arbitrator did not rest his decision on this point only on the previous awards but also considered the relevant deeds and in this background we do not find that the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is in any way tainted with illegality. Suffice it to say that the learned Arbitrator did not rest his decision on this point only on the previous awards but also considered the relevant deeds and in this background we do not find that the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is in any way tainted with illegality. In doing so, we further find that the learned Arbitrator determined the solid land in question @ Rs. 96,000/- per acre and the tank at the half of that rate for the purpose of determination of compensation pointing out that Ext.C a sale deed dated 15.7.74 filed on behalf of the Ref. Claimant/respondent showed that such land was sold @ Rs. 63,636/- per acre that is to say much lower than that was determined by the learned Arbitrator as the price of the solid land. Therefore, we do not find any reason to arrive at a conclusion that the price determined by the learned Arbitrator was either an excessive or much below the market price as contended by both parties. 8. Before we finally leave the point touching assessment of compensation regarding land, structure etc., it should be pointed out that the respondent filed cross-objection in connection with the appeal before this Court on 9.3.88, wherein such respondent has also challenged the rate of compensation fixed for trees and structures but unfortunately on going through the evidence on record we do not find any material to establish that the valuation of the trees and the structure would have been more on the date of acquisition of the property. The learned Arbitrator in dealing with the matter pointed out that as the original record was not produced before him, the claim petition filed by Pulin Saha, the husband of the respondent in1943 that is to say immediately after requisition could not be perused to verify the names and numbers of the trees as mentioned in the reference petition and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the evidence ofP.W.2 should be accepted regarding the names and numbers of the trees as he claimed personal knowledge about the same as a neighbour who also saw the claim petition filed by the said Pulin 'Saha. We do not find anything to take a contrary view from that of the learned Arbitrator who assigned sufficient reasons for the purpose of relying on the evidence ofP.W.2 regarding the number of trees. We do not find anything to take a contrary view from that of the learned Arbitrator who assigned sufficient reasons for the purpose of relying on the evidence ofP.W.2 regarding the number of trees. The authority concerned also assigned sufficient reason for fixing the valuation of the trees on the case land. Since there is no illegality shown in coming to such a conclusion we also do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Arbitrator in the matter. 9. Now the question in regarding interest only as no solatium has been granted by the learned Arbitrator. Respondent in her cross objection, filed before this court, did not object, in connection with refusal of solatium by the authority below. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the act in question has got no provision for interest, therefore, the interest awarded should be set aside. In reply to that, the learned Advocate for the respondent has referred us few reported decisions of the Apex Court like AIR 1996 S.C. Vol. VII 331 (Union of India through the Defence Estate of Calcutta vs. Dulal Ch. Ghosh & Ors.), AIR 1987 S.C. 2177 (Avoy Surana & Ors. vs. Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Ors.). In both these cases, it was held by the Apex Court that the party concerned is entitled to the interest in a case governed under the aforesaid Act. 10. In this case, the case properties had been under requisition, under Defence of India Act and Rules since 1942/43 and subsequently were permanently acquired under Act 30 of 1952 on and from 15.11.74. Arbitrator was appointed by the Government of West Bengal through Notification No. 657 dated 21.7.1983 and it is not disputed that the appointment of the Arbitrator was made long after the Competent Authority determined the compensation for acquisition of the properties in question and the Ref. Claimant made the request for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the matter. Having regard to this, we feel no difficulty following the decisions of the Apex Court noted above that the learned Arbitrator rightly awarded the interest in the instant case. 11. In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we find that the instant appeal must fail. Appeal is thus dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. 11. In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we find that the instant appeal must fail. Appeal is thus dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The respondent gets liberty to withdraw the amount lying deposited with the Registrar (now designated as Registrar General) of this Court as compensation money and its interest after 3 months from the date of this order, if no stay order is received from the Apex Court in connection with the disposal of the instant appeal. Y. R. Meena, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.