NISHITH RANJAN MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These arc two cross-appeals from the decision dated 29th July. 1964 of the Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Premises No. 7, Hazra Road (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of establishment of an educational institution. The relevant notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 22nd October, 1959. The Collector gave his award under Section 11 of the said Act on 25th March, 1961. The premises in question contained land measuring about 1 bigha 8 cottahs 15 chittacks and certain structures. The Collector awarded Rs. 1,93,881.25 np. for the land, Rs. 1,13,300.00 for the structures, Rupees 120.00 for the trees and Rs. 46,095.19 as statutory allowance aggregating Rupees 3,53,396.44 np. In making the reference under Section 18 the Collector states that the value of land was determined on the basis of sales in the locality at the material time and the structures were valued at market rates prevailing at the material time. The persons interested in the land were dissatisfied with the Collector's award and a reference was made as aforesaid under Section 18 to the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore. At the time of hearing of the reference the owners produced a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer as witness and also another witness on their behalf. On behalf of the Collector a Surveyor and Valuer attached to the Land Acquisition Office, Calcutta gave evidence. The claim of the referring claimants before the Special Land Acquisition Judge was as follows:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_342_AIR(CAL)_1973Html1.htm</FRM> In other words the claimants claimed Rs. 4,49,365.00 less Rs. 3,07,181.25 np. i.e. Rs. 1,42,183.75 in addition to what the Collector had allowed for the land and the structures. Adding to this the statutory allowance for the additional amount, namely, Rs. 21,327-56, the net claim of the claimants before the learned Land Acquisition Judge came to Rs. 1,63,511.31 np. The learned Land Acquisition Judge awarded Rs. 2.08.580.00 for the land and Rupees 1,28,400.00 for the structures. So far as the value of the trees is concerned there was no dispute before the learned Judge and the Collector's award of Rs. 120.00 was sustained. Therefore, the learned Land Acquisition Judge made a total award of Rupees 3,37,100.00. On this, of course, the learned Land Acquisition Judge allowed 15% statutory allowance.

(2.) Both parties were aggrieved by the above decision of the learned Land Ac-qusition Judge and appealed from that decision to this Court. Appeal No. 666 of 1965 was the appeal filed by the referring claimants while appeal No. 797 of 1965 was the appeal filed by Government. We heard both these appeals together. At the time of hearing Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the referring claimants claimed that the value for the land should be Rs. 2,61,500.00 and the value for the structures should be Rupees 1,42,500.00. We shall deal with them one by one.

(3.) The disputed land has two road frontages : on the south of it is Hazra Road, on its north Nafar Kundu Road. The expert valuer who gave evidence on behalf of the referring claimants adopted belting method for determining the value of the land. There was no complaint on either side so far as this belting method is concerned. There was some difference only as to the method of treating and valuing the lands of different belts. The valuer who gave evidence on behalf of the referring claimants took 100 ft. as the depth of the first belt from Hazra Road and the same depth for the first belt from Nafar Kundu Road. The land which intervened between the first belt from Hazra Road and the first belt from Nafar Kundu Road and which measured 2.67 cottahs was treated as the second belt from Hazra Road. There was a small recessed land in the first belt from Hazra Road frontage as well as a small recessed land in the first belt from Nafar Kundu Road frontage. Following the usual practice the learned Land Acquisition Judge treated the recessed lands as 3/4th in value of the first belt land. So far as the second belt land is concerned the learned Land Acquisition Judge valued the second belt at the rate of 2/3rd of the first belt value. The total land area of 1 bigha 8 cottahs 15 chittacks was divided up by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in the following manner:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_342_AIR(CAL)_1973Html2.htm</FRM> These divisions into belts and recesses adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Judge were not seriously challenged by either party and, in any case, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact of the learned Judge on these points. The learned Judge has clearly stated in his judgment how he calculated the belting spaces and the recesses and we find nothing wrong in such calculations.