STATE OF W B Vs. NARAYAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore in L.R.A. Case No.4 of 1979. The State of West Bengal is the appellant in the instant appeal and it appears that certain lands including tanks and structures were initially requisitioned under the West Bengal Act II of 1948 and were subsequently acquired. It appears that after the referring claimants respondents received a notice under S.5(1) of the said Act, they preferred an objection by making claims for the compensation for the lands, structures etc. giving details of such claim on different items. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector had valued the acquired solid land @ Rs. 633.50 per cottah and tank land @ Rs. 316.75 per cottah and on such basis, an award of compensation for structures, trees and other immovables, was also made for total sum of Rs. 2,23,462.11 paise on all heads. The referring claimants being dissatisfied with the said award, made an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on the said application, L.R.A. 4 of 1979 arose.

(2.) The State of West Bengal in the said appeal filed a certified copy of the judgment passed on December 15, 1976 by the learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge in L.R.A. 268 of 1975 in order to show that the value of the solid land in the vicinity was @ Rs. 394 per cottah on Jan. 24, 1974. The referring claimants respondents, however, relied on certain documents showing the value of land in the vicinity at a much higher rate and it also appears that witnesses were also examined on behalf of the referring claimants including one Jamaluddin Ahmed, son of the Mutwalli of Wakf Estate from which the acquired land had been purchased. After taking into consideration all the exhibits showing the price of the land in the vicinity of the acquired lands and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Land Acquisition Judge, inter alia, came to the finding that the value of the acquired lands which faced the Diamond Harbour Road should be fixed @ Rs. 4033/- per cottah and the lands on the back portion should be valued at a reduced rate @ 3227/- per cottah. The learned Judge also fixed the value of the tank lands as half of the solid lands. He had also considered the question of reduction of the value of the lands because of the bigger size of the plots in question. The learned Judge had come to the finding that the document sought to be relied on by the State Government should not be accepted because the said documents related to lands which were not similarly situated. The State Government contended that the referring claimants having purchased the disputed lands at the rate of Rs. 1,26,000/- should not be permitted to claim any higher sum and in any event, the enhancement of the value for only about three years must be insignificant. The learned Judge accepted the claims of the referring claimants that the said properties had been purchased by the referring claimants from the Wakf Estate at a lesser price because the referring claimants had already been the tenants under the said Wakf Estate and as such, the Wakf Estate had agreed to sell the said land only for Rs. 1,26,000/- but the said price was not the indication of the market value of the land in the days of acquisition. It appears that on the basis of the valuation noted by the learned Judge a decree for Rs. 4,38,301.05 paise was passed being the enhanced amount and the learned Judge also gave a decree for 15% as solatium and also interest at the rate of 6% per annum of the total enhanced amount from 24-1-1974 till payment with a further recurring compensation @ 6% per annum on the market value from 11-9-1973 to 3-1-1974. Against the said judgment and decree, the State of West Bengal preferred this instant appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sengupta appearing for the appellants, has contended that the learned Judge has given the decree in violation of the provisions of S.25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. He has contended that under S.25(1), the court cannot give an award exceeding the amount claimed by the referring claimants. Mr. Sengupta has also contended that admittedly the acquired properties consist of big plots of lands containing structures, tanks etc. and the price of bigger plots is comparatively much less than the smaller plots. For this contention, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Sm. Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1977 SC 580. Mr. Sengupta has contended that when the referring claimants has purchased the said lands at Rs. 1,26,000/- only a few years back, it should be reasonably accepted that the said price was the fair and reasonable market price at which the intending seller had agreed to sell to the intending purchaser who has agreed to purchase. Mr. Sengupta has contended that in the said deeds, it has not been mentioned that the said lands had been sold at a concessional rate because the purchasers were the tenants in respect of the said lands. Mr. Sengupta has contended that when a price is paid by the owner, such price usually reflects the market value of the recent time, after taking into consideration the relevant factors involving a transfer of land. For this contention, Mr. Sengupta has referred to another decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1670. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that if the sale is of recent date, then all that need normally to be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and a willing seller and there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since such transaction. Mr. Sengupta has submitted that within two or three years of the sale, there has not been any appreciable rise in the price and such evidences have not been adduced by the referring claimants. Accordingly, the price mentioned in the sale deeds, should have been accepted by the learned Judge as reasonable market price on the relevant date.