STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DHANESH BIJOY SAHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals at the instance of the State of West Bengal arise out of a land acquisition reference. By notification dated 20th February, 1958, part of C. S. plot No. 244 of Khatian No. 212, Mouza Kenduadihi, was sought to be acquired. F. A. 921 of 1964 is in respect of garden, area being 2-70 acres and F. A. No. 922 of 1964 is in respect of Bastu and Tara land being 1.41 and Order 42 acres respectively. In making the reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector stated that the valuation has been assessed on the basis of the sale figures of land sold in the Mouza and those have been obtained from the Registration Department and as per provision of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that the land was valued at Rs. 8.500/- per acre. The referring claimant not being satisfied filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. It must be stated that the lands were acquired under the relevant provision of the Act II of 1948. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the valuation of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 142/- per cottah. The Land Acquisition Judge raised it to Rs. 300/- per cottah and thereupon this application was made. It must be pointed out that after the valuation has been fixed neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the District Judge gave 15% compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that the referring claimant did not claim the 15% compensation in his application for reference. The learned Judge, while he disposed of the reference, stated that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded at the rate of Rs. 142/- per cottah and that there was no material before the Court on what basis the Collector arrived at the valuation fixed by him.

(2.) Mr. Chakravarti on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Judge was wholly wrong in stating that there was no material before the Court to indicate the Collector's basis for arriving at the valuation fixed by him. He argued that in his reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act it has been specifically stated that the valuation has been assessed on the basis of the sale figure in the Mouza and as such there was indication how the valuation was arrived at.

(3.) Mr. Mitter on behalf of the respondent however contended that under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Land Acquisition Act the ground on which compensation has been determined must be stated. In the order of reference one basis has been given under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 19 (1) (d) is in the following terms :--