Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1524 (CAL)

BHAGATRAM v. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION

2011-12-16

BISWANATH SOMADDER, PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgement dated August 24, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Land Acquisition Case No.04 of 1996. 2. The appellant obtained Khas possession of a piece of land measuring' .0800 hectare at survey plot No. 165 in School Line area, Port Blair. Initially, he constructed a small cottage thereon for his residential purpose. Subsequently, he constructed a house in the said plot. Thereafter, he also made addition and alteration of his house. His land was classified as a house site in 1996. He received a notice from the Land Acquisition Collector, Port Blair for acquisition of his land along with other surrounding lands for the purpose of extension work of the airfield of Port Blair Airport. The appellant submitted his written objection. After consideration of all the materials, the Land Acquisition Published an award indicating an amount of compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs. 9,03,299/- for his land. According to him, his land was situated in the commercial area and so the commercial value of the land should be taken into consideration, and at that time the market price of the land was Rs. 3,000/- per sq. mtr, but the award indicates the assessment much below Rs. 3,000/-. Moreover, the valuation of the property was not taken into consideration properly at the time of acquisition. The valuation of the standing trees on the land in question was not also properly considered and as such a nominal amount of compensation was granted. According to him, the valuation should have been to the tune of Rs. 40,17,549/- and for that reason he prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The learned District Judge, upon analysis of the evidence on record adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Collector was not at all arbitrary. On the contrary, it was found to be quite reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, he dismissed the said L.A. case. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 3. Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that the learned District Judge did not consider the evidence on record adduced by the appellant. Moreover, the report submitted by the engineer appointed by him had been ignored by the learned District Judge. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 3. Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that the learned District Judge did not consider the evidence on record adduced by the appellant. Moreover, the report submitted by the engineer appointed by him had been ignored by the learned District Judge. He has contended that the engineer appointed by him is a qualified person. He is a BE(Civil) and has been in the profession for a long period and had surveyed many lands of the locality and the reports submitted by him in respect of other lands had been accepted by the Collector, but the report submitted by him in respect of land in question was not accepted by the Collector. The said engineer has been examined as the PW-2. Learned counsel has also pointed out that PW-2, having requisite qualifications and experience, is a competent person to assess the compensation. Moreover, he is a government contractor and as such, the learned District Judge was not justified at all in rejecting the report submitted by him. 4. Mr. Jayapal has also contended that the appellant had produced as many as 13 registered sale deeds of the same locality and such sale deeds dearly indicate the market price of the surrounding lands or the surrounding villages of the airport and from such sale deeds it will reveal that the compensation, as determined by the Collector, was totally inadequate. The learned District Judge even did not discuss those deeds in his judgement. By one sentence, he has discarded all the 13 deeds and as such the impugned judgement cannot be supported. 5. Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel, thus, submitted that the assessment of compensation as done by the learned District Judge cannot be supported and the award in respect of land in question should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 40,17,549/-, as claimed by the appellant, upon taking into consideration the materials placed by the appellant before the learned District Judge and the judgement under appeal should be accordingly set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mohd. Tabraiz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the land in question cannot be! considered as a commercial plot at all since there was no evidence in that regard. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mohd. Tabraiz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the land in question cannot be! considered as a commercial plot at all since there was no evidence in that regard. As per record of the Collector, the land has been described as a house site and in fact the appellant has a house thereon. Though the land is situated just beside the Andaman Trunk Road, there is no material on record to show that the said plot is a commercial one, and as such, the land in question had been rightly considered as a house site and valuation had been assessed accordingly. Mr. Tabraiz has also contended that evidence of the appellant as well as of the PW-2, an engineer appointed by him, cannot be considered at an. The PW-2 had considered the valuation of the house in a general form without any specification and without any mention as to the quality of the materials (such as, branded materials or not), used by the appellant for the purpose of construction, electrical fittings, asbestos sheets, thickness of the tin sheet. He also contended that the report does not indicate whether the trees standing on the land in question are fruit bearing ones or ordinary trees, as are found in the locality. The valuation of the trees had been taken into consideration in the award and the assessment was done accordingly. Thus, the award had been rightly passed. 7. Mr. Tabraiz also contended that the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the consideration money appearing in the 13 deeds as produced by the appellant before the learned District Judge because of the fact that there is no separate indication as to the valuation of the house itself in each deed and a consolidated amount had been mentioned in the respective deeds. He also pointed out that deeds of 1997 had also been produced in support of the claim of the compensation. The appellant had also produced deeds in respect of other villages which are away from the land in question and as such the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the consideration money as reflected in those deeds. Thus, Mr. Tabraiz submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the L.A. case. He supports the judgement. 8. The appellant had also produced deeds in respect of other villages which are away from the land in question and as such the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the consideration money as reflected in those deeds. Thus, Mr. Tabraiz submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the L.A. case. He supports the judgement. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, we find that the only point to be considered in this appeal is whether the assessment as done by the learned District Judge was proper, justified and adequate. 9. There is no dispute that the area of land in question is of .08 hectare in survey No. 165 at School Line under Tehsil Port Blair and that the appellant is the owner of the said land along with the structure thereon. As per the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, an amount of Rs. 9,03,299/- has been assessed as compensation for the land in question, totally. In coming to such an award in respect of the land in question, the assessment had been done on the basis of market value at the relevant time and the valuation of the structure and trees standing on the land in question. As indicated earlier, the acquisition was made for extension of the airfield at Port Blair. The appellant depended much on the report (exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 of the PW-2) in support of his claim for enhancement. However, on careful perusal, we find that he also depended on the 13 sale deeds exhibited by him for reassessment of valuation. 10. So far as the report of the PW-2 and his deposition are concerned, we find that the report (exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) had been submitted in a general form without any specification as to the quality of his house. There is no indication whether the appellant had used electrical fittings of a standard company or with regard to the thickness of asbestos, tins, etc. used by the appellant in his house and also whether such materials were of a branded company or not. Without mentioning the quality of the materials used for the construction of the buildings, the PW-2 assessed the life of the building as 50 years in a general form and assessed the valuation of the building accordingly. used by the appellant in his house and also whether such materials were of a branded company or not. Without mentioning the quality of the materials used for the construction of the buildings, the PW-2 assessed the life of the building as 50 years in a general form and assessed the valuation of the building accordingly. As per examination in chief, the PW-2 is a qualified B.E (Civil) Engineer having experience for a long time and is a government contractor doing every type of civil engineering works. There is no doubt about the qualification, experience and skill of the but what is to be considered is the manner in which the assessment had been done by him as stated in his report (exhibit-2). As observed above, the PW-2 did not mention the quality, type or the branded name of Materials used by the appellant for construction of his house. He did not Mention anything as to levelling of the land. He has candidly admitted in his cross examination that if the quality of building materials is not upto ark or of some inferior quality, the depreciation of the said building is faster. However, without mentioning anything as to the fact whether standard materials had been used for the purpose of construction, his general assessment as to the life of the building which he put at 50 years, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the depreciated value, assessed by him, cannot also be taken into consideration. Similarly, there is no indication to construction of the drain, but he had assessed the valuation of the drain at a high level. Above all, he calculated the current cost for replacement of the said construction, which could not be the assessment of valuation. The assessment of valuation of the building is to be done after taking into consideration all the factors as stated above after deducting the depreciated value of the building properly. Therefore, on this score, he learned District Judge was right in rejecting the report of the PW-2. 11. So far as the registered sale deeds are concerned, the submission of Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal that the learned District Judge has discussed those deeds in one sentence only, cannot be accepted. Therefore, on this score, he learned District Judge was right in rejecting the report of the PW-2. 11. So far as the registered sale deeds are concerned, the submission of Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal that the learned District Judge has discussed those deeds in one sentence only, cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge has analyzed the deeds and recorded that none of the deeds produced by the appellant relates to the classification of the land as a House Site, as observed in respect of the land in question. The appellant had produced the deed of 1997 in support of his contention for reassessment. Such deed could not be taken into consideration because of the fact hat valuation of the land gets enhanced in a rapid manner upon issuance of notification of acquisition and therefore it was naturally expected that valuation of he land situated nearby would get enhanced automatically upon issuance of such notification for the obvious purpose to gain more compensation. The learned District Judge was, therefore, justified in not biking into consideration of the deeds, which were executed post the date of notification of the acquisition and also those deeds which relate to land at the adjacent villages. 12. There is no material at all to consider that the land in question could be treated as a commercial one and therefore the valuation has been assessed in the award treating the land in question as a house site. We do not find any wrong in this regard Moreover, the various constructions/houses situated on different lands in respect of the deeds produced by the appellant cannot be same and identical. Different person: may construct their houses according to their different needs and capacity etc. They may use such materials for the purpose of construction, keeping in mind their ability to spend. The probable life of the building would vary accordingly. Different person may use different types of electrical fittings of different values. Different persons making construction on their respective land may have different tastes with regard to the type of construction and in this regard there cannot be uniformity in assessment. 13. Above al1, the valuation of the construction or building situated on different lands under Exhibit-4 series had not been separately shown therein. A consolidated amount for the land along with the structures/houses thereon had been shown in the deeds. 13. Above al1, the valuation of the construction or building situated on different lands under Exhibit-4 series had not been separately shown therein. A consolidated amount for the land along with the structures/houses thereon had been shown in the deeds. Therefore, these deed cannot be taken as a standard for assessment of value of the land in question. 14. To appreciate the valuation of the land in question vis-a-vis the valuation of the surrounding land, a chart of land as per exhibits is given in the tabulated form below:- Deeds marked as exhibits Valuation (as per Sq. Meter) 4(c) Rs.397.05 4(d) Rs.323.52 4(h) Rs.422.22 The land in question Rs.737.73 15. Thus, the learned District Judge opined that the valuation assessed in respect of the land in question is on the higher side. 16. Mr. Jayapal submitted that the valuation submitted by the PW-2 in respect of other lands had been accepted but in the instant case, the same procedure had n b been followed. This submission cannot be accepted. Every case is required to be de b in accordance with the materials of that case. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Trial Judge has analysed the deeds produced by the appellant before him and we are of the view that the a deeds will not be at all helpful in the matter of re-assessment of valuation of the land in question together with structure and trees thereon. The report lays down valuation of the trees situated on the land in question, but the report submitted by the PW-2 is silent and there is no indication as to whether the standing trees are fruit bearing ones or not. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for acceptance of the exhibited deeds as a standard ones for assessment of the valuation. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no scope of interference with the impugned judgement. Therefore, the question of assessment of the valuation of the land in question together with building and trees thereon d not arise. 19. This appeal is devoid of any merit and is, therefore dismissed. 20. However, we do not pass any order as to costs. 21. Therefore, the question of assessment of the valuation of the land in question together with building and trees thereon d not arise. 19. This appeal is devoid of any merit and is, therefore dismissed. 20. However, we do not pass any order as to costs. 21. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to parties, if applied for, after observing all required formalities. Biswanath Somadder, J.: I agree.