Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 529 (CAL)

COLLECTOR (L. A) v. G. BALESHWARI

2012-06-19

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SANJIB BANERJEE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on November 30, 2003 in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 1996. The learned District Judge held that the appellant in FAT No.002 of 2010 had made less payment of Rs.10,96,400/-. The learned District Judge, upon relying on Ext. 10 tendered in evidence, opined that the market price of the relevant house site should be reasonably assessed at Rs.600/- per square metre. The Collector had assessed the house site at Rs.300/- per square metre which, according to the learned District Judge, was much below the then market price. The learned District Judge relied on Ext. 10 as a comparable sale deed for the purpose of evaluating the market price of the house site of the objector. The learned District Judge assessed the price of the house site in question at Rs.600x1400=Rs.8,40,000/The Collector had allowed the objector a sum of Rs.300x1400=Rs.4,20,000/-. The learned District Judge, therefore, held that the Collector had assessed Rs.4,20,000/- less towards the market price of the house site. The learned District Judge also granted further solatium to the tune ofRs.1,20,000/-. In view of section 23( 1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the learned District Judge granted 12% per annum on the enhanced market price and held that the Administration had made a less payment ofRs.5,96,400/- to the deceased objector who was substituted by his legal heirs. 2. Mr.Tabraiz submits that since the sale price mentioned in Ext. 10 included the price towards the structure standing on the land, the same could not have been relied upon by the learned District Judge for the purpose of determining the market price of the relevant house site. Mr.Tabraiz further submits that the learned District Judge, on the basis of the Ext. 10 where the market price of the house site was Rs.422/- per square metre, assessed the market price of the respondents' house site at Rs.600/- per square metre as on the date of the award passed by the Collector i.e. on March 30, 1996. Mr.Tabraiz urges that the market price of the acquired house site should have been assessed as on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act and not as on the date of the award. Mr.Tabraiz urges that the market price of the acquired house site should have been assessed as on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act and not as on the date of the award. It is also submitted by Mr.Tabraiz that for the purpose of extension of the airport at Port Blair the Administration acquired vast stretches of land by a common notification dated March 13, 1995. The parcels of land acquired under the common notification were classified in the following categories:(1) Agricultural land; (2) House site; and (3) Commercial site. 3. The Collector, upon considering various reports submitted by various authorities and also taking into account several judicial pronouncements, determined the market value of the aforesaid three categories of land as follows: (1) Agricultural land at Rs.31/- per square metre; (2)House site at Rs.300/- per square metre; and (3) Commercial site at Rs.500/- per square metre. 4. According to learned counsel for the Administration, several similarly placed plot-holders had challenged the determination of the market price by the Collector before the learned District Judge and also subsequently before this Court but the market price of the plots as determined by the Collector was not enhanced. In the instant case, however, the learned District Judge was pleaded to enhance the market price of the house site from Rs.300/- per square metre to Rs.600/- per square metre. Mr.Tabraiz submits that there was no reason to enhance the market price in respect of the house site of the deceased objector particularly when the market price of the other house sites in the area acquired under the same notification was uniformly assessed at Rs.300/- per square metre. 5. Apart from the enhancement of the compensation on account of the land, the Administration also challenges the grant of the quantum on account of damages incurred for the shifting of residence by the land-loser. The Administration contends that the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Collector was sufficient and there was no justification for the Court to have suo motu increased such amount way beyond the Rs.45,000/- claimed in the petition under section 18 of the. Act by the land-loser. The Administration contends that the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Collector was sufficient and there was no justification for the Court to have suo motu increased such amount way beyond the Rs.45,000/- claimed in the petition under section 18 of the. Act by the land-loser. The Administration questions the basis of the Court largesse by asserting that the judgment under appeal does not expend even a sentence in such regard; either as to the perceived arbitrariness in the Collector awarding a lesser amount or in the justification of allowing an astronomical sum of Rs.5,00,000/- when the person affected had confined the amount sought on such head to Rs.45,000/-. The Administration insists that the land-loser chose not to justify the sum ofRs.45,000/- claimed in the petition or even adduce any evidence in support of such head of claim. The Administration wants the enhancement of the sum on such head to be reduced to the level assessed by the Collector. 6. The Administration refers to a previous decision of this Court rendered in FMA No.001 of 2011 on December 16, 2011 (Shri Bhagat Ram vs. The Collector, Land Acquisition) and suggests that the present matter should be governed by such verdict. The Administration demonstrates that such previous decision was also in respect of a similar house site acquired under the same notification as in the present case. The Administration claims that since it was the compensation adjudged by the Collector that was upheld in Bhagat Ram, the compensation awarded to this land-loser should be pegged at the same level. In the Bhagat Ram case, it was the land-loser who had come up in appeal against the refusal by the Court below to enhance the amount awarded by the Collector. The Administration says that there should be a degree of uniformity maintained by Court and dissimilar levels of compensation should not be awarded to similarly placed persons. 7. The heirs of the land-loser refer to the treatment of Ext. 10 by the learned District Judge and submit that no error was committed in relying on a sale deed of November, 1995 in respect of a nearby house site when the notification in the present case was issued in March, 1995 and the award was rendered in March of the following year. 10 by the learned District Judge and submit that no error was committed in relying on a sale deed of November, 1995 in respect of a nearby house site when the notification in the present case was issued in March, 1995 and the award was rendered in March of the following year. They rely on Supreme Court judgments on the principles involved in assessing compensation and suggest that the learned District Judge did not commit any error in enhancing the quantum on the• several heads. In their independent appeal, the heirs of the land-loser question the reduced rate of interest awarded and suggest that the mandate of section 28 of the Act has been breached thereby. 8. The parties have referred to the judgments reported at 1997 (6) SCC 41 ; AIR 1997 SC 1779 ; AIR 1991 SC 1160; and, 1997 (2) SCC 640 . In the light of the view taken herein, there is no occasion to discuss such judgments in any great detail. In any event, neither side has sought to question the principles involved in assessing a matter of the present kind as recognised in the cited decisions. 9. While it is true that appropriate compensation should be received by a land-loser upon the acquisition of any property by the State, there is also the hallowed principle of maintaining a level of uniformity in decisions rendered by the Court. Though it is appreciated that merely for the sake of form or uniformity a subsequent litigant should not be denied the rightful compensation, yet the circumstances of the subsequent litigant should be sufficiently distinguishable from the matter of a previous land-loser where the order has attainted finality; or, a case of immense prejudice has to be made out for the Court not to be guided by- an order made in a similar case. One of the factors that could count in such a situation would be if it is demonstrated that the previous matter passed unchallenged on behalf of the relevant land loser or if it is apparent that an inadequate case was made out by the previous litigant. It is in such circumstances that the papers relating to the Bhagat Ram case have been directed to be produced and both sets of parties have been afforded time to go through the same. 10. It is in such circumstances that the papers relating to the Bhagat Ram case have been directed to be produced and both sets of parties have been afforded time to go through the same. 10. There is no dispute that the Collector's award of compensation covered both the Bhagat Ram case and the present one. It was a common order that was passed, assessing the values of the agricultural land, house sites and commercial sites. It was a generic order that was to govern all the land acquired in course of the acquisition under the relevant notification except as to the varying amounts awarded to the individual land-losers based on the extent of land, the nature thereof and the other circumstances peculiar to the individual land-losers. In the Bhagat Ram matter the same document which was Ext. 10 in the Court below in this case was referred to and relied on. This Court took into account such sale deed in concluding that the award ofRs.300/- per square metre for a house site was justified. . 11. At the time when the order impugned in the present appeals was passed, the nil award of the learned District Judge in the Bhagat Ram case was pending in appeal. Ideally, it should have been brought to the notice of the learned District Judge that the same Court had taken a view agreeing with the Collector's assessment in a similar case involving a house site in an area sufficiently proximate to the location of land in this case. Though the learned Judge would then have been free to render a different opinion, since the previous matter was pending in appeal and had not attained finality, but such dissimilar view would then have had to be supported by the discovery and recording of such facts as would have justified the dissimilar treatment in two apparently similar matters. Ideally again, at the time that the Bhagat Ram appeal was taken up by this Court, it should have been pointed out that there was a similar matter in which the compensation awarded by the Collector relating to a nearby house site had been enhanced in course of proceedings under section 18 of the Act. 12. Ideally again, at the time that the Bhagat Ram appeal was taken up by this Court, it should have been pointed out that there was a similar matter in which the compensation awarded by the Collector relating to a nearby house site had been enhanced in course of proceedings under section 18 of the Act. 12. In the matter pertaining to Bhagat Ram not having been brought to the notice of the Court below in course of the hearing of the present case before it and in the enhanced award rendered by the Court below in this case not having been brought to the notice of this Court in course of the Bhagat Ram appeal, a piquant situation has arisen where two veritable neighbours formerly owning seemingly identical natures of house site would come through the process by obtaining divergent awards founded on unrecognisably dissimilar bases. Such a situation needs to be avoided, not by contriving to pull down a deserving person to a lower level to make the matter conform to the previous decision; but by assessing whether the dissimilar bases adopted by the Court below in the previous matter and this are justified. 13. It appears to be the bane of our judicial system that there is an undesirable "level of inconsistency and similar matters result in dissimilar results, based on personal predilections of judicial officers and, to a degree, the lack of time afforded for arriving at a decision to an overworked judge in a system bursting at it seams where number-crunching rather than the realization that fates of citizens are at risk may have become the more significant aspect of concern. 14. There is nothing in the order impugned that would reveal that the case of this land-loser was different from the other house site owners whose similar lands had been acquired under the same notification. In the context of the generic award that was passed by the Collector, the relevant consideration that ought to have weighed with the learned District Judge was whether this objector's case was different from the other erstwhile house site owners who had suffered under the same notification. There is no discussion in such regard in the judgment assailed. In the context of the generic award that was passed by the Collector, the relevant consideration that ought to have weighed with the learned District Judge was whether this objector's case was different from the other erstwhile house site owners who had suffered under the same notification. There is no discussion in such regard in the judgment assailed. The learned District Judge assessed the several documents exhibited and found the sale deed of November, 1995 to be the pest suited for founding .an independent assessment into the quantum of compensation that should be paid out by the Administration to the land-loser or his heirs. It has to be remembered that when a superior forum is seized of a matter involving the propriety of a decision rendered by an institutional authority possessing jurisdiction to decide the matter, for the view of the lesser forum to be undone it is necessary first that the error committed in arriving at the decision or in the decision-making process is first recognized and spelt out. It would not do for an appellate authority to assess the matter afresh by disregarding the view of the original forum unless it is recorded that there was such patent error committed in the assumption or exercise of jurisdiction that the original order did not merit any further reference or consideration. It is, unfortunately, missed in many cases that the Trial Court or the original forum is often on trial in course of an appeal. It is undeniable that the wide scope of section 18 of the said Act allows a reference thereunder to be regarded as a de facto appeal. If an appellate forum altogether disregards the view of the original forum and takes upon itself to decide the matter afresh, without disclosing why the order of the original forum should be brushed aside in one stroke, it leads to a more grievous kind of arbitrariness that undermines the judicial system as recognized by law. 15. The learned District Judge did not dwell at any length as to why the entire basis of the Collector's assessment called to be discredited. The order passed in the section 18 proceedings can pass off as an original assessment of the compensation due. The statute, however, confers such duty on the Collector and not on the Court receiving a petition under section 18 of the Act. The order passed in the section 18 proceedings can pass off as an original assessment of the compensation due. The statute, however, confers such duty on the Collector and not on the Court receiving a petition under section 18 of the Act. There is no indication as to how the Collector went wrong in the matter of assessing the land value for a house site, save the subjective satisfaction of the Court below that Ext.l0 was the best document to go by and the erroneous enhancement of the value of land pegged to the date of the Collector's award rather than the date of issuance of the notification. Even going by the acceptance by the learned District Judge of the land value of Rs.422/- per square metre as per Ext.10, there is no basis evident or discernible for the amount of Rs.422/to be enhanced to Rs.600/- though the sale deed was of November, 1995 and the award was made in March, 1996. Again, if the palpable error in pegging the amount to the date of the award is disregarded, by the same yardstick as applied by the learned District Judge, the value of the land comparable to the land being the subject matter of Ext. 10 ought to have been assessed at less than Rs.300/- per square metre as on the date of the notification published in March, 1995. If Rs.422/- could be enhanced by Rs.178/- for the four-month period that elapsed between the sale deed and the date of the award, the same figure of Rs.422/- could be scaled down by more than Rs.122/- to allow for the previous seven-month period to arrive at a figure of less than Rs.300/- per square metre as on the date of the publication of the notification. 16. It is not for the sake of uniformity alone the value of the land at the house site is found to be appropriately assessed by the Collector at Rs.300/per square metre; there appears to be no legal or factual basis to the enhancement of the amount in the order impugned. The order of the learned District Judge, to the extent it enhanced the value of the land, cannot be sustained; is set aside and the value of the land restored to Rs.300/- per square metre as assessed by the Collector. 17. The order of the learned District Judge, to the extent it enhanced the value of the land, cannot be sustained; is set aside and the value of the land restored to Rs.300/- per square metre as assessed by the Collector. 17. As to the Court below finding the land-loser entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of damages, even the heirs of the land-loser cannot justify the same on the basis of the records. There could have been no occasion for the Court below to award any sum under such head in excess of what had been claimed. There is also sufficient merit in the Administration's assertion that the quantum awarded in such regard could not have been enhanced without the heirs of the land-loser adducing adequate evidence in support thereof. However, considering that the Collector had awarded damages to individual land-losers in a general manner without going into much of the specifics, the claim of the land-loser of Rs.45,000/- on such count appears to be reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the amount awarded under such head is reduced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.45,000/-. 18. There is no dispute as to the quantum on account of compensation, solatium, damages and interest already deposited by the Administration. It only remains for the rate of interest to be fixed. Here again, it is evident from the order impugned that the learned District Judge fell into error by seeking to balance the sum awarded by applying a lower rate of interest thereon than what the statute mandates. The heirs of the land-loser will be entitled to interest in accordance with section 28 of the Act at the rate of9% per annum on the amount for a year from the date of the appropriate authority taking possession of the land arid at 15 % per annum for the period thereafter. 19. The two appeals, FAT No.002 of2010 and FAT No.004 of 2010, stand disposed of accordingly. Since both sets of parties have succeeded partially, there will be no order as to costs. 20. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to the compliance with all requisite formalities.