Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 381 (CAL)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. JNANENDRA CHANDRA ANJOY

2006-06-30

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA

body2006
BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of the State of west Bengal and is directed against the order dated 8th October, 1993 passed by the District Judge and Land Acquisition Court, District- Cooch Behar in miscellaneous L. A. Case No. 114 of 1990 thereby allowing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by enhancing the valuation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the acquired land of the claimant. ( 2 ) THE land of the respondent was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Satellite Campus of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalay at Pundibari in the District of Cooch Behar under notification dated 25th April, 1986. ( 3 ) THE Collector awarded compensation at the following rates for different categories of land: 1. Rs . 18,334/- per acre in respect of Awal land; 2. Rs . 17,600/- per acre in respect of Doem land; 3. Rs . 14,666/- per acre in respect of Soem land; 4. Rs . 23,467/- per acre in respect of Bastu Land and betel nut garden; 5. Rs. 4,406/- per acre in respect of Chaharam land. ( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied, the landowner claimed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and by the order impugned herein, the Land acquisition Court has enhanced the valuation to the following rates: 1. Rs. 31,500/- per acre in respect of Awal land; 2. Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of Doem land; 3. Rs . 36,000/- per acre in respect of Bastu land and betelnuf garden. ( 5 ) IN addition to the aforesaid rate, the respondent was given additional compensation calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced compensation awarded from the date of notification as well as an amount of 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation as solatium and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of Collector's award till payment within a year and if not paid within that time, at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till payment. The amount already paid to the petitioner was directed to be set off. The owner was further given enhanced amount as compensation for requisition period at the rate of 6 per cent on the total market price of the acquired land assessed. The amount already paid to the petitioner was directed to be set off. The owner was further given enhanced amount as compensation for requisition period at the rate of 6 per cent on the total market price of the acquired land assessed. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present appeal. Although the award was passed in the year 1993 the present appeal was filed long seven years thereafter with prayer for condonation of delay and this Court allowed such prayer. ( 7 ) MR. Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended before us that while assessing the valuation of various qualities of land, the learned Land Acquisition Court totally ignored the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of his client and assessed the valuation according to its sweet-will which had no connection with the materials on record. Mr Bhattacharya contends that the learned Land acquisition Court in arriving at such conclusion wrongly relied upon the compensation assessed by the Collector in respect of land for rural piped water supplies scheme in Requisition Case No. 38/75-76 although there is no evidence to show that the nature of property involved in the said proceeding is similar to the present one or is adjoining the land in question. Mr Bhattacharya contended that there was no reason for discarding the various deeds filed by his client in assessing the valuation. Mr Bhattacharya further contends that in reference under Section 18 of the Act, the onus is upon the applicant for reference to show that the valuation assessed by the Collector was inadequate and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the applicant, the reference was bound to fail. According to Mr Bhattacharya, the respondent failed to produce sufficient materials justifying enhancement to such a higher rate. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Land acquisition Judge. ( 8 ) MR Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, strenuously opposed the aforesaid contentions of mr Bhattacharya. According to Mr Bhattacharya, the respondent failed to produce sufficient materials justifying enhancement to such a higher rate. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Land acquisition Judge. ( 8 ) MR Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, strenuously opposed the aforesaid contentions of mr Bhattacharya. According to Mr Bagchi, the lands involved in piped water supplies scheme are also situated in the same mouza and there was no illegality on the part of the learned Trial Judge in assessing the valuation on the basis of the valuation of the Collector in respect of the lands involving selfsame mouza with slight modification, inasmuch as, the earlier scheme was notified six years prior to the notification in the present case. Mr. Bagchi further contends that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the State-respondent controverting the claim of the respondent and even no suggestion to him was given in cross-examination that the claimed valuation was inflated one. According to Mr Bagchi, in this case, this Court should not interfere with the order of assessment passed by the learned Trial Judge. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the owner of the land in proper perspective and had solely relied upon the assessment of the Collector in an earlier proceedings for acquisition. Since the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the order of the Land Acquisition Court, Mr Bagchi rightly did'not pray for enhancement of the valuation. ( 10 ) SINCE this Court is the first Appellate Court, it can in exercise of its power under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code re-appreciate the evidence already on record and can arrive at its own conclusion on the basis of those materials and we propose to adopt the said procedure. We find that the learned Trial judge without any just reason ignored the documents filed on behalf of the claimant and the State. ( 11 ) IT appears from record that the respondent produced three different deeds of the selfsame mouza and those related to the period of 1984 and 1986. By virtue of Ext. 1,1 kottah 13 chittaks was sold at a price of Rs. 5,000/ -. By Ext. ( 11 ) IT appears from record that the respondent produced three different deeds of the selfsame mouza and those related to the period of 1984 and 1986. By virtue of Ext. 1,1 kottah 13 chittaks was sold at a price of Rs. 5,000/ -. By Ext. 2,1 kottah was sold at a price of Rs. 6,000/- and Ext. 3 indicates that 5 kottahs and odd were sold at a price of Rs. 18,000/ -. ( 12 ) OF the different deeds produced by the State of West Bengal, only ext. E, Ext. 1, Ext. I, and Ext. K relate to the transactions involving the concerned mouza and other deeds are in respect of different mouza and as such, those are irrelevant. ( 13 ) BY Ext. L, 7 and 3/4 decimals of land was sold at a price of Rs. 3,000/-on 6th June, 1984; by Ext. K, 8 decimals of land was sold at a price of rs. 1,500/- on 7th January, 1985; by Ext. l, 16 decimals of land was sold at a price of Rs. 2,000/- on 27th February, 1985 and by Ext. E, 5 kottahs of land was sold at a price of Rs. 200/- on 19th December, 1987. As regards Ext. E, in one place of the deed, it is stated that 5 kottahs of land was the subject matter while in another place it is stated to be in respect of 58 decimals. The rates disclosed in six other deeds produced by the parties, it is apparent that the ext. E does not reflect the correct picture. Even if, we consider the valuation made in Ext. L to be correct valuation, the valuation per acre comes to about rs. 40,000/- ; if we take Ext. K to be the appropriate yardstick, the valuation will be about Rs. 20,0007- per acre. According to Ext. l valuation should be about Rs. 13,000/- per acre. ( 14 ) ON the other hand, according to Ext. l, the valuation per acre should about Rs. 1,50,000/- in accordance with the rate mentioned in Ext. 2, the valuation should about Rs. 3. 60,000/- per acre and according to Ext. 3, the valuation should be about Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. l valuation should be about Rs. 13,000/- per acre. ( 14 ) ON the other hand, according to Ext. l, the valuation per acre should about Rs. 1,50,000/- in accordance with the rate mentioned in Ext. 2, the valuation should about Rs. 3. 60,000/- per acre and according to Ext. 3, the valuation should be about Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. ( 15 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid materials if we take into consideration the valuation of the Collector in respect of other project of the same mouza which was of the year 1980, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at. by the learned Trial Judge as regards assessed valuation in this appeal by the State. In our view, the valuation of the land should be much higher than the one assessed by the learned Trial Judge. Since the respondent has not preferred any appeal and already 20 years have passed from the date of notification, no purpose will be served by unnecessarily remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Judge for fresh valuation as suggested by Mr Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant as we are convinced that valuation of the land was much higher than the one assessed by the learned Trial Judge. ( 16 ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. No costs.