JOYDEB DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act) in case No. Howrah-2 of 1988 (Valuation) passed on 16th of June 1994 by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has taken us through the judgment and award and various materials to substantiate his contention that the valuation per cottah should have been Rs. 5,500.00, as was held by the learned Tribunal itself and it should have allowed the benefit of Sec. 23(1A) and Sec. 23(2) of the Act on the said market value. According to him, the learned Tribunal, in addition, ought to have allowed the claimant a further interest@ 7 1/2% per annum on the market value, which the claimant is entitled to from the date of issue of notification under Sec. 6 of the Act till the date of the award by the Collector. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision on Chandra Bansi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1767. He has also cited the decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India, 2001(4) Indian Civil Cases (S.C.)1 to support his claim with regard to the entitlement of solatium and additional compensation. He has further contended that the belting system adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot be justified having regard to the depth of the area acquired being the distance from the road adjoining plot No. 24 belonging to the claimant to which plot No. 27 was attached. He also pointed out to various other factors, particularly, Ext. 2, which was found by the learned Tribunal to be a comparable unit valued at Rs. 5,000.00 per cottah and on account of its being situated at an area little interior than that of plot No. 27 for which the learned Tribunal had arrived, rightly, at the valuation of Rs. 5,500.00 per cottah. In fact, Mr. Roychowdhury had only assailed the mode of arriving at the valuation through belting system adopted by the learned Tribunal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the situation of the area, particularly, when both plot No. 24 and plot No. 27 belong to the same claimant-owner, virtually being one tract of land.

(3.) Mrs. Gita Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing with Mrs. Dipti Bhattacharyya, opposing this plea on behalf of the respondent, has contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, plot No. 27 was around 180 feet away from the road without having any approac except common passage and, therefore, it was not directly accessible from the road. The depth is such that this area could not fetch the same price, which the plot adjacent to the road would have fetched. The learned Tribunal had rightly adopted the mode of belting and had calculated the valuation correctly. She has further pointed out that the valuation of the tank was rightly calculated at the ratio of 50% of the rate of the solid land. She contends that the principle of interest@ 7 1/2% per annum as enunciated in the decision in Chandra Bansi Singh (supra) has no manner of application in the present case. According to her, this decision was rendered on 22nd of Aug., 1984 whereas Sec. 23(1A) was incorporated in the Act of 29th of Sept., 1984. This incorporation of Sec. 23(1A) was in effect introduced to avoid the mischief that was noted by the Apex Court in the decision in Chandra Bansi Singh (supra). After the introduction of these provisions to ameliorate the disbursing of the claims has, in fact, taken care of the delay that was conceived of in that decision. Therefore, the claim of 7 1/2% interest as put forth by Mr. Roychowdhury cannot be acceded to.