HARENDRA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us having suffered a money decree in a suit for recovery of the excess consideration amount, have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, First Court, Krishnanagar). The first respondent, Union of India through the Divisional Organizer, Special Service Bureau (in short, S.S.B.), South Bengal Division, Calcutta, Group Centre at Sarat Pally, P.O.- Krishnagar, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Nadia had filed the suit in which decree was passed directing the defendants viz. the appellants herein as well as the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and the profornia respondent Nos. 8 to 24 and the respondent Nos. 25 and 26.

(2.) The facts stated in the plaint are briefly reproduced hereinafter. The S.S.B., Directorate General of Security under the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India had its central office at 'Raj Bati' at Krishnagar under police station Kotwali in the District of Nadia. For setting up its own headquarters the local group centre of S.S.B., South Bengal at Krishnagar was looking for a suitable piece of land. After inspection and survey the land belonging to the appellants herein and proforma respondent Nos. 8 to 24 were ultimately chosen to be suitable for the aforesaid purpose. The appellants along with other proforma respondents in or about September, 1991 offered to sell their land to the plaintiff. On receipt of this offer the plaintiff took various steps for ascertaining marketable title, location etc. Thereafter for the purpose of valuation a request was made by the appropriate officials of the plaintiff to the District Collector, Nadia for fixing the price of the said land. It was made clear to the appellants herein and the proforma respondents who were the vendors that the valuation so to be fixed by the Collector had to be accepted by them. The Collector on this request arranged for and it was done. Such valuation was also accepted by the appellants and the proforma respondents in respect of all the plots of land barring plot bearing No. 403 for which enhanced price was claimed by the owner/ vendor concerned. However, ultimately, upon negotiation and persuasion the appellants and the proforma respondents ultimately agreed not to insist on higher price, and accepted the valuation arrived at by the then officials of the Collectorate. The local official of the plaintiff after having been satisfied with everything regarding valuation, title, nature and character of the land sent the proposal for purchase of the land by the mode of private deal and negotiation for sanction and approval of the higher authority. The Cabinet Secretary duly granted sanction for purchase of the land at a price which had been agreed upon by the plaintiff as well as the vendors. Thereafter, by and under two registered deeds of conveyance dated 11th November, 1992 and 13th November, 1992 the appellants and the proforma respondents duly sold and the plaintiff purchased the said plots of land for an aggregate sum of Rs. 74,28,607/-. After the said deal was completed the possession of the land had been taken and the plaintiff started foundation works on the said plots of land. Upto this period there was no dispute or difficulty. After the aforesaid transactions having been closed, the plaintiff discovered a news item published in February, 1983 in a local daily viz. 'Sandhya Pratibedan and a Bengali daily 'Dainik Bartaman' that the sold plots of land were purchased at an abnormally high price. Having seen these news items, the then Collector passed an order for making fresh valuation of the said plots of land which had already been conveyed. While doing so a review of the category of entire land was made. A review of the valuation of the suit properties was also made by the joint inspection made by the officials of the District Collectorate and also the plaintiff. On such review it was found that the valuation of the land would be Rs. 59,63,4717- in lieu of Rs. 89,86,325/- as per categorization made later. This review of valuation was intimated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff thereafter charged the Collector and his officials that because of the negligence in making appropriate valuation, rather making erroneous valuation, the plaintiff has suffered pecuniary loss of Rs. 23,48,988/-, The Collector and his officials were charged by the plaintiff that had they made the valuation bona fide and with prudence and diligence the aforesaid loss would have been avoided. The plaintiff made a request to the Collector to take steps for recovery of the excess amount from the appellants and the proforma defendants, before filing the suit.