STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SANTIMOYEE DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas in L.A. Case No. 61 of 1977 (v) Reference was made by the claimant against the award passed by the L.A.Collector for the acquired land situated at Mouja Behala for the purpose of widening of Diamond Harbour Road. The date of notification was 28lh June, 1962 and the date of taking over possession was 4th June, 1974. The L.A. Collector awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs.2777.- per cottah and for the structure being premises no.282,Diamond Harbour Road at the rate of Rs.22,200.00

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this award, the claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per cottah by making a reference to the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge.According to the claimant the structure would be valued at Rs. 1,50,000.00. The learned Special L.A.Judge on consideration of the evidence adduced by the claimant and on behalf of the State and also on consideration of the materials on record in the shape of reports, and assessment register found that the property under acquisition should be valued not on the method of land and building i.e. by breaking up the value of the land and building separately. According to him the valuation should be made on the basis of the rental fetched by the land and building and on the basis of his finding he assessed the valuation of the acquired property consisting of land and building at Rs. 83889/-. He also awarded 15% as solatium on the compensation awarded and also followed interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the awarded compensation till payment.

(3.) Being aggrieved by such judgment and award the State has preferred this appeal Mr. B.N. Ghosh, learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Jogabandhu Roy, learned Advocate representing the appellant/State has submitted that the method of valuation adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Judge cannot be accepted as correct. It is further urged that the property should be valued on the basis of principles of land and building method, i.e. by giving I the break up value of the land and building I separately and also on the basis of judicial pronouncement made in this regard. Mr. Tapan Sengupta representing the respondent has on the other hand urged that the judgment and award of the learned L.A. Judge is based on correct principles of valuation as the property in question yielded income from rent at the time of objection and the property was not fit I for valuation on the basis of giving break up of the land and building separately. Further he has urged that the economic prospects and the situation of the land were considered by the learned L.A. Judge in arriving at the valuation of the property in question. The judgment, according to him, does not call for any interference. It is further urged that the property would have fetched much more value had the economic prospect of the situation of the land and building been fully considered by the L.A. Judge. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Sengupta as no cross has been preferred against the judgment and award of the learned L.A. Judge.