Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 74 (CAL)

Susanta Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

2015-01-30

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. Re : F.A. 75 of 2005. The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and/or decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Burdwan, on 27th July, 2000 in L.A. Case No. (41 of 1997)/(78 of 1996) at the instance of the referring claimants/appellants. The said appeal was registered as F.A. 75 of 2005. The State Government has also filed an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, in the said land acquisition case. The said appeal was registered as F.A. No. 123 of 2002. Since both the appeals are directed against a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, both the appeals are taken up for hearing simultaneously. Let us now consider the merit of both the aforesaid appeals in the facts of the instant case. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 13th May, 1970 for acquiring various plots of lands, including the land of the appellants/referring claimants. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 11th May, 1973. Subsequently, award was declared in respect of land of the appellants on 16th November, 1979 and possession of the appellants' land was also taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on the very same date, i.e. 16th November, 1979. The appellants/referring claimant was not satisfied with the award published by the Land Acquisition Collector as according to them the market value of the land belonging to the appellants which was acquired by the state government was not assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector by taking note of the land value in the locality. Accordingly, on the prayer of the referring claimants, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The learned Land Acquisition Judge after considering the materials on record enhanced the valuation of the appellants' land and accordingly modified the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. But while doing so, the Land Acquisition Judge did not pass any direction for payment of interest on the awarded amount under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Bera, learned advocate, appearing for the referring claimants/appellants submits that even the valuation of the appellants' land has not been properly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. But while doing so, the Land Acquisition Judge did not pass any direction for payment of interest on the awarded amount under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Bera, learned advocate, appearing for the referring claimants/appellants submits that even the valuation of the appellants' land has not been properly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. He submits that though the land of the referring claimants/appellants was recorded as 'danga' land in the finally published Record of Rights, but in fact, the appellants' land was converted into 'bastu' land and building plan was also sanctioned by the municipal authority allowing the appellants/referring claimants to construct a building on the said land. Mr. Bera, thus, submits that when the appellants' land was converted from 'danga' to 'bastu' and such conversion of the appellants' land from 'danga' to 'bastu' has also been proved by the appellants/referring claimants by production of relevant evidence in this regard, the Land Acquisition Judge ought to have assessed the market price of the appellants' land at a rate, higher than the rate as mentioned in the sale deed executed and registered in the year 1969 in respect of the other plots of lands in the vicinity which were recorded either as 'viti' land and/or as defunct rice mill. Mr. Bera, thus, invited us to assess the market price of the appellants' land at a rate higher than the rate at which the appellants' land was assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. After considering the materials on record, we find that though the appellants/referring claimants have proved by evidence that the appellants' land was converted from 'danga' to 'bastu' and building plan was also sanctioned by the municipal authority allowing the appellants/referring claimants to construct a building on the said plot of land, but in fact, evidence on record regarding the actual valuation of such plot of land is insufficient. Accordingly, we cannot allow the prayer of the appellants/referring claimants for further revision of the market price of the appellants' land. The state government has also accepted of market price of the land of the appellants/referring claimants as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The state government has stated in ground no. Accordingly, we cannot allow the prayer of the appellants/referring claimants for further revision of the market price of the appellants' land. The state government has also accepted of market price of the land of the appellants/referring claimants as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The state government has stated in ground no. 7 of its memorandum of appeal that since notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13th May, 1970; the learned Land Acquisition Judge did not commit any illegality in assessing the market price of the appellants' land on the basis of the sale deed, executed and registered in the year 1969. We find substance in such contention of the state government. Accordingly, we do not propose to revise the valuation of the appellants' land. Let us now consider the other contention raised by the appellants/referring claimants regarding interest. On perusal of the award, we find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge, while passing the said award did not pass any direction for payment of statutory interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We, thus, hold that the impugned award is required to be modified only to this extent that the state respondent is liable to pay interest over the awarded amount @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking over possession of the land of the appellants, i.e. 16th November, 1979 upto 17th December, 1980 and thereafter @ 15% per annum, i.e. from 18th December, 1980 till payment of the awarded compensation. We, thus, direct the state government to pay the interest amount on the total amount of awarded compensation @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking over possession, i.e. from 16th November, 1979 to 17th December, 1980 and thereafter @ 15% per annum, i.e. from 18th December, 1980 till payment of all types of compensation, i.e. land value, solatium and additional compensation. Such payment should be made within three months from date. In default of making payment, the appellants/referring claimants will be at liberty to recover the awarded amount including interest by way of execution. The appeal being F.A. 75 of 2005 filed by the referring claimants is thus affirmed with the above modification. Re : F.A. 123 of 2002. The appeal filed by the state government being F.A. 123 of 2002 is, thus, dismissed.