Calcutta High Court
Dharmsila Roy vs State Of West Bengal on 27 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)CHN338
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
1. All these appeals were heard analogously as those are interlinked and identical questions are involved. F. A. No. 197 of 2002 has been preferred against the judgment dated 24th March, 1993 passed by the learned L. A. Judge. Alipore in L.R.A. Case No. 225 of 1992 (V). The other seven appeals being F. A. Nos. 210-215 of 2002 and F.A. No. 63 of 1998 were filed against two different judgments dated February 20, 1997 and February 24, 1997 delivered in different L.R.A. cases heard analogously and disposed of by the aforesaid two common judgments passed by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, 1st Court, Alipore. Particulars of the adquired lands are given below.
Case No. Acquired Plots Nature Area Mouza Sheet No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6 L.R.A. 235 of 1992 (V) 37 20/38 28 Sali 0.5132 acres cottahs -31.179 Kasba 9 F.A. 197 of 2002 38 08/38 47 Bank of Tank 0.04 acre -2.42 cottahs Kasba 9 L.R.A. G of 1996 (V) FA 211 of 2002 38 08/38 47 Bank of Tank 0.04 acre -2.42 cottahs Kasba 9 L. R. A. 11 of 1996 (V) F.A. 212 of 2002 38 27 Sali 0.55 acre 33.275 cottahs Kasba 9 L. R.A. 14 of 1996 (V) F. A. 213 of 2002 38 05 38 06 Sati Doha 0.43 acre-26.015 cottahs 0.06 acre10 89 cottahs Kasba 9 L.R.A. 16 of 1906 (V) F.A. 214 of 2002 38 42 Tank 0.26 aero 15.73 cottahs Kasba 9 L.RA.13 of 1906 (V) F.A. 215 of 2002 3824/3836 Sati 1.29 acre-78.045 cottahs Kasba 9 L.R.A 21 of 1996 (V) F.A. 63 of 1998 3827/3844 Khal 0.02 acres-1.21cottahs Kasba 9 LRA.12 of 1996 (V) F.A.210 of 2002 3806 3805 3806 Sali Doba 1/8th share of 1.29 acres.-9.756 cottahs 1/8th share of 0.18 acre 1.36 Cottahs Kasba Kasba 9 9
2. All the lands involved in these reference cases along with some others were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector for East Calcutta Area Development Project in Original Case No. L. A. No. 11/2 of 1977-78. The L.A. Collector estimated the compensation of sali land at the rate of Rs. 1381/- per cottah and danga land at the rate of Rs. 2017/- per cottah. Tank and doba lands were assessed at the rate of Rs. 690.40 paise per cottah and khal land, at the rate of Rs. 345.20 paise per cottah and passed awards accordingly.
3. Being dissatisfied with those awards passed by the L.A. Collector, the present appellants along with other claimants preferred those reference cases thereby contesting the valuation of the lands assessed by the L.A. Collector.
4. At the time of hearing before the Land Acquisition Judges, no oral evidence was adduced by either of the parties but the referring claimants filed certified copy of the judgment passed by the Additional Special L. A. Judge, 4th Court, Alipore dated 14th December. 1990 in L.R.A. Case No. 83 of 90/(V)/290 of 90(V) and the same was marked as Ext. 1. The State respondent on the other hand, filed certified copies of two deeds dated 3rd February, 1982 and 12th February, 1982 which were marked as Ext. A and Ext. B respectively.
5. The Land Acquisition Judges accepted the valuations arrived at through Ext. 1 and came to the conclusion that the appropriate valuation for sali land should be Rs. 5,000/- per cottah, that of danga land should be Rs. 7.000/-per cottah, tank and doba should be assessed at Rs. 1250/- per cottah and khal land should be valued at Rs. 2500/- per cottah, as held by the learned Special Judge while delivering Ext. 1.
6. Accordingly, the learned Land Acquisition Judge in L. R. A. No. 225 of 1992 (V) passed award in favour of the claimant by following the said rate along with solatium @ 30 per cent on the enhanced market value. The referring claimant was also given rental compensation @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of possession i.e. 27th February, 1978 and 12th January, 1979 till 7th December, 1983 on the enhanced market value. The referring claimant was further granted interest @ 9 per cent per annum for one year from the date of notification i.e. 8th December, 1983 and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till date of payment on the enhanced compensation (land value plus solatium). The State of West Bengal was directed to deposit the decreed amount in Court within three months from that day.
7. By the other awards dated 20th February, 1997 and 24th February, 1997 against which the F.A. Nos. 210-215 of 2002 and F.A. No. 63 of 1998 have been preferred, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, enhanced the valuation of the lands at the aforesaid rates and also granted solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value. Interest was allowed at the rate of the 9% per annum from December 8, 1983 to December 7, 1984 and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the payment of the entire compensation less the amount already paid. Further rental compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession (February 27, 1978 to December 8, 1983) on the entire market value was granted.
8. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred all these appeals separately against the respective awards.
9. It appears from the record that during the pendency of these appeals, the present appellants filed applications thereby praying for amendment by enhancing the claim to an amount @ Rs. 30,000/- per cottah and those amendment applications were allowed subject to the law of Limitation. The appellants have also paid additional Court-fees in these appeals according to the amended valuations.
10. The appellants have further filed applications under Order 61 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for taking into consideration three different judgments passed by this Court in three different first appeals arising out of reference in respect of self-same notification of acquisition. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, the appellants have contended that this Court in those proceedings having fixed the valuation of the sali lands at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per cottah in one case and Rs. 25,000/- per cottah in the other two, the appellants are entitled to get the self-same benefit as those judgments have attained finality and the State-respondents are bound by those judgments.
11. It is further contended by annexing the map of the locality that the lands acquired in these cases are nearer to the road whereas the lands which were the subject-matters of those three cases were far away from the main road and as such, the appellants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per cottah.
12. The State-respondent, however, has not disputed the existence of those judgments, the correctness of the map and the fact that those judgments have attained finality.
13. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously contended that valuation of the subject-matter of the sali lands covered under the self-same notification having already been assessed @ Rs. 25.000/ per cottah and the said order having attained finality, the appellants are also entitled to set the self-same benefit in these cases and this Court by relying upon those judgments should enhance the valuation of the acquired lands at least at the said rate. In support of such contention Mr. Roy Chowdhury has placed before this Court the following decisions of Supreme Court :
1. Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. .
2. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and Anr. .
3. Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Raw Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SCW 4538.
4. Major Dhian Singh v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 475.
14. Mr. Das Gupta, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent has opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury and has contended that judgments passed in different proceedings, not inter parses, cannot be admitted in evidence under Order 61 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Das Gupta further contends that the learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials placed before the Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the valuation of the land should be assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per cottah for sali land, Rs. 7,000/- for danga land, Rs. 1250/- for tank and doba and Rs. 2500/- for khal and as such, this Court should restrict its scrutiny on the material which were placed before the Trial Judge.
15. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials we are of the view that in view of the Supreme Court decisions referred to by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, this Court is entitled to look into other decisions passed earlier by other Division Benches of this Court in respect of the lands acquired under the self-same notification when those decisions have attained finality. When some of the claimants have got compensation @ 25,000/- per cottah in respect of sali lands covered under the same notification, there is no reason why the present appellants should not get compensation at that rate.
16. Mr. Das Gupta, however, fairly concedes that those decisions have attained finality. Therefore, when the State has accepted that valuation because of the fact that special leave application filed by the State against such order was dismissed as time-barred. State is at least estopped from challenging the valuation of the lands acquired by virtue of the same notification at that rate. Therefore, this Court is entitled to accept those decisions as the yardstick of valuation as there is no dispute that those lands were acquired under the self-same notification and from the map annexed to the application under Order 61 Rule 27 of the Code, we find that the lands in question before us are of no inferior quality to those involved in those three appeals. We, therefore, allow the applications filed by the appellants for taking into consideration those judgments and the map of the locality and those documents be treated as additional evidence. We have already indicated that the State has not disputed the veracity of the map produced by the appellant and as such, no question of giving further opportunity to the State arises for controverting the additional evidence. The learned Counsel for the State has also not prayed for such opportunity.
17. Mr. Das Gupta, however, tried to contend before this Court that the petitioners having restricted their claim to Rs. 15.000/- per cottah in the original claim application now cannot enhance the amount by filing application for amendment. We have already indicated that such amendment was allowed by another Division Bench subject to limitation. The State has not challenged that order before the highest forum and this Bench sitting in a co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot reopen that question. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO. A.P. v. B.V. Reddy & Sons, , the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of amendment of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present cases, inasmuch as, the awards were passed by the L. A. Collector after the coming into operation of amended provision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act.
18. We, thus, find that the law of limitation does not stand in the way of the appellant in amending the claim to an enhanced amount. They, it is needless to mention, have already paid enhanced amount of Court-fees on such enhanced amount.
19. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we are thus, of the opinion that in view of the earlier judgment passed by the another Division Bench of this Court assessing the valuation of the sali land at Rs. 25,000/- per cottah and the State having accepted such valuation, they are bound by such valuation and they are also estopped from disputing the correctness of the valuation assessed by the Court. We, thus, set aside the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge and enhance the compensation of both the sali and the danga lands to Rs. 25,000/- per month. So far the tanks and doba lands are concerned, the valuation of such land should be assessed at the rate of 50 per cent of the valuation of sali land i.e. @ Rs. 12.500/- per cottah and the khal should be assessed at the rate of 25 per cent of the sali lands i.e. @ 6250/- per cottah. Bank of tank should be treated as danga land.
20. The appellants will also be entitled to the interest, rental compensation and the solatium etc. granted by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judges at the rates specified in the orders impugned.
21. These appeals are, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.
22. I agree.