Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 124 (CAL)

Collector v. Subal Adhikari

2011-01-25

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. 1. CHALLENGE is to the order dated October 13, 2003 passed in L.A. Case No.HAD-001/2003-2004 passed by the Collector under the West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1974 cum the Chief Executive Officer, Haldia Development Authority and the judgment dated December 23, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Tamluk in L.A. Misc. Appeal No.317 of 2004. 2. CHALLENGE is over the quantum of compensation relating to land acquisitioned by the Haldia Development Authority. Before acquisition notice was issued upon the opposite party of that proceeding directing that all the interested parties might file their objection, if any, within a certain period from the date of receipt of the notice. The proceeding for acquisition was taken up accordingly. Date of hearing was fixed on October 13, 14 and 15 of 2003 upon due notice. The parties produced the deeds in respect of the claim and counter-claim. Ultimately, the concerned authority assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2387.12 paise per decimal. It is the contention of the opposite party that the compensation should be at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per decimal in the area. Evidence was tendered by both the sides. Thereafter, the Collector disposed of the said proceeding. Being aggrieved, the opposite party preferred an appeal. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge disposed of the said appeal holding that the compensation of the land should be at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per decimal and passed orders accordingly. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. NOW, the question is whether the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Tamluk was justified in allowing the appeal. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going into the materials on record, I find that the 7 plots of land of the quality of dhasa, jal are the subject matter of acquisition. The said 7 plots of land were requisitioned by the Chief Executive Officer, Haldia Development Authority awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2,38,714/- per acre in respect of jal, pukur, dhasa and in case of Bastu, at the rate of 50% above of jal land. Beside that, solatium at the rate of 30% was granted. Thus, the assessment was made as appearing at page no.42 of the application. 4. BEING aggrieved, the opposite party preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court discussed the matter elaborately. Beside that, solatium at the rate of 30% was granted. Thus, the assessment was made as appearing at page no.42 of the application. 4. BEING aggrieved, the opposite party preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court discussed the matter elaborately. So far as the determination of the compensation, the documentary evidence was tendered on behalf of the concerned authority and some deeds of 1997 of adjacent village were produced. On the other hand, the opposite party of the proceeding produced the deeds of 2003 in respect of the land situated in the village adjacent to the village where the lands under acquisition are situated. The acquisition took place in the year 2003. No deed was available with regard to the disposition of the land in or around the land in question and the petitioner was able to produce the deed of 2003 in respect of the lands which were situated to the adjacent village. The deeds produced by the opposite party have been marked as exhibit 5 series and such deeds relate to the quality of the land described as jal, bastu and such transfers took place before the notification. Such deeds indicate that the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per decimal in one deed. Another deed lays down 8 and decimals of land were sold at the cost of Rs.2,55,000/-. Another piece of land of 11.5 decimals was sold at the price of Rs.3,45,000/-. Under the circumstances, instead of accepting the valuation as proposed by the authority, the learned lower appellate Court accepted the valuation as reflected in the deeds exhibit 5 and 5(A) series. Upon taking the average value, the learned lower appellate court has assessed the compensation of Rs.30,000/.- per decimal. Since the land was of jal and dhasa quality, in order to ascertain the compensation, the learned lower appellate court has assessed the quantum of compensation by reducing the rate of Rs.30,000/- by 40%, that is, Rs.18,000/- per decimal. Thereafter, he calculated the total compensation to be paid. As regards solatium, the appellate court has accepted the same percentage which was awarded by the competent authority, that is, 30% upon the value of compensation so arrived. Interest was also awarded at the rate of 12% from October 22, 2003 to March 3, 2004. In this way, the total compensation was calculated to the extent of 43,82,010/-. 5. As regards solatium, the appellate court has accepted the same percentage which was awarded by the competent authority, that is, 30% upon the value of compensation so arrived. Interest was also awarded at the rate of 12% from October 22, 2003 to March 3, 2004. In this way, the total compensation was calculated to the extent of 43,82,010/-. 5. THE price of the land is increasing day by day and so the learned appellate court was justified in rejecting the price calculated on the basis of the deeds of 1995-97 produced by the L.A. Collector. From the above facts and figures, it reveals that the learned lower appellate court has given reasons in details in assessing the quantum of compensation with regard to the land under acquisition. Such reasons cannot be said to be unjustified or without any basis. 6. IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the vendors of those deeds have not been examined and so, the valuation as noted therein should not be accepted. The learned lower appellate court has given justified reasons why the valuation was accepted in the manner as indicated above and why he has rejected the valuation as proposed by the competent authority on the basis of deeds of 1995-1997. Since this Court is exercising the revisional jurisdiction, a reasoned order which is not perverse at all, should not be disturbed. Therefore, I am of the view that there should not be any interference with the order impugned. Accordingly, this revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. 7. CONSIDERING the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. After passing of the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of the above order on the ground to file an appeal against the order. Heard both sides. Prayer is considered and allowed. 8. THE being the position, the judgment and order be stayed for a period of one month from date. If any order of stay is obtained in the meantime, the order of stay will be vacated automatically.