Chatterjee, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of two reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which arise out of acquisition of two pieces of lands that were required for the purpose of Assam Railway Project. Both the reference cases under Section 18 of the L.A. Act were taken up together by the Reference Court and disposed of in the following manner:- The claim of the claimant in case No. 19/1956 in respect of compensation for loss of business, on account of cost of removal and on account of diminution of value of adjacent property must be dismissed and the claim of the claimant in case No. 21 of 1956 for compensation on account of loss of business must also be dismissed. The claim for a higher valuation in the cases however, must be allowed in part. So far as the case No. 19 of 1956 is concerned, the land in question was valued at Rs. 115/- per cuttah and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1, 725/- was awarded by the Reference Court as the price of the land acquired in place of Rs. 570/- awarded by the Collector. The claimant in case No. 21 of 1956 on the same basis would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2349-86 as compensation in place of Rs. 1,080/- awarded to her. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant had filed the aforesaid two appeals being F.A. No. 332 and F.A. No. 333 of 1959 which were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) So far as the land involved in case No. 9 of 1956, is concerned, the claimants that is the appellants claimed that the quantity of land acquired was measured 25 acres but the same was erroneously measured as 22 acres only. In both the cases, the claimants claimed compensation on account of the value of the land at Rs. 2,000/- per cuttah. The further case of the claimants in both the cases was that they had a timber business on their respective lands which yielded them to a considerable profit and that adequate compensation at 20 times-should have been allowed. So far as the case No. 19 of 1956 is concerned, net profit was claimed at Rs. 2,000/- per annum whereas in case No. 21 of 1956 the only net profit was claimed at Rs. 2,900/- per annum. In L.A. Case No. 19 of 1956 the appellant further claimed compensation on account of cost of removal of timber and bricks and-of a structure which were on the land and she further claimed compensation on account of diminution in value of her house standing immediately behind the adjacent to the land acquired due to the premises having had lost its approach from the main road on which the lands acquired, abutted. The acquisition in the aforesaid two cases were admittedly made under the West Bengal Land Requisition And Acquisition Act II of 1948. Possession of the lands was taken on 28th July, 1949 and notifications of the acquisitions were published on 3rd November, 1949. Compensation on account of the value of the lands was awarded by the L.A. Collector at the rate of Rs. 50/- per cuttah. According to the appellant, the prevailing market value of the lands of similar nature in the vicinity of the November, 1949 was Rs. 2,000/- per cuttah and compensation was claimed on that basis. It is an admitted position that the lands acquired in the aforesaid two cases formed a part of an area of 4 biggahs which were settled in the year 1952 with one Sarojit Kr. Majumder. In order to prove the respective cases of the parties, both sides adduced evidence and also filed documentary evidence. The claimants/appellants produced exhibit I to 1(c) and 1(f) and 1(g) in support of the valuation claimed by them. Whereas on behalf of the L.A. Collector four documents were produced being Exhibit A(l) to Exhibit A(4) in support of the valuation claimed by the State of West Bengal. Exhibit 1 is a kobala of 1948 in respect of 10 cuttahs of land with structures which were valued at Rs. 22,000/-. Exhibit 1(a) is an agreement for sale of 1949 covering 16 cuttahs of land with a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Exhibit 1(b) of 1946 is a kobala of five cuttahs with a house valued at Rs. 6,000/-. Exhibit 1(c) is a kobala of 1945 whereby 10 1/2 cuttahs of lands with three houses and other structures were sold for Rs. 14,500/-. From the documents produced by the appellants, it would be evident that apart from the land covered by Exhibit 1(a) there were structures on the lands as indicated in other documents. It is the case that the lands covered by Exhibit 1 to 1(c) stood on the Hill Court Road which is in the heart of the Siliguri town-and a busy thoroughfare with lots of business already thereon. The lands acquired stood on the Burdhaman Road which is 500/600 ft. away from Hill curt Road and apparently the valuation of the lands in the two localities though they are close to each other can never be same. Exhibit 1(f) and 1(g) are of the year 1958. The learned counsel for the parties agreed before us that in view of the fast growth of Siliguri Town, transactions being Ext. 1(f) and 1(g) which were of the year 1958 cannot form the basis of valuation of the year 1949. Exhibit 1(h) dated 17th April, 1950 was in respect of 15 cuttahs of land out of these covered by Nirupama's Kobala, Exhibit A. The entire land of this lease was the subject matter of acquisition in case No. 19 of 1956. The land has been taken possession of by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25th July, 1949 and notification in respect of such acquisition was published on 3rd November, 1949. So far as the valuation of land that is Exhibit 1(h) is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties did not raise any submission before us that the valuation shown in the aforesaid exhibit can at all form the basis of valuation in the present case. The Reference Court, therefore, on consideration of the documents produced by the claimants came to a conclusion of fact that no acceptable document which can help the Court in coming to a proper finding as to the market value of the land in question could be arrived at. Under these circumstances, the Reference Court considered documents produced from the side of the State of West Bengal. So fhr as Exhibit A is concerned, the consideration paid came up to Rs. 30/- per cuttah but along with that purchaser had the liability of paying the rent of Rs. 127-80 paisa per anna. The Reference Court added the consideration paid to the established rent and thereby the valuation came to Rs. 60/- per cuttah. Exhibit A(3) gave the value to be Rs. 70-8-0 per cuttah. Both these transactions covered a large area and. the price fetched per cuttah in such cases would certainly be less that fetched at sales of small plots. The Reference Court however relied on Exhibit A(2) and A(4) which were transactions in respect of small plots of lands and according to the Reference Court, Exhibits A(2) and A(4) would give a correct standard of valuation to it and accordingly, the valuation indicated in Exhibit A(2) and A(4) were accepted and the Reference Court thereby came to a conclusion of fact that the valuation of the land in question should be fixed at Rs. 115/- per cuttah. However, in coming to such a conclusion, the Reference Court fixed the valuation of the land in question at Rs. 116/- per cuttah as the acquisition had to be considered as transaction between the willing parties and the element of coercion on the one hand or undue eagerness to sell the other would find the Reference Court to fix the aforesaid sum. In our view, incoming to a correct rate of valuation of the lands acquired, the Reference Court erred in relying on the aforesaid two Exhibits being Exhibit A(2) and Exhibit A(4) which were produced by the State of West Bengal without considering Exhibit 1(a) produced by the claimants. For the reasons noted herein under, we are also of the view that in view of availability of other comparable unit before the Reference Court, there was no reason to it to fix the valuatio on the basis of Exhibits A(2) and A(4). As already stated, the Reference Court after relying A(2) and A(4) which were permanent leases of bastulands executed in the year 1947 and 1948 respectively and after considering the selami together with tte capitalised rent, fixed the valuation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 115/- per cuttah.
(3.) As noted herein earlier, Exhibit A(4) was a document for permanent lease of bastulands which was executed in the year 1947 whereas notification in respect of the acquired land was made on 3rd November, 1949, when in view of Exhibit 1(a) which was executed in the year 1949 that is a year when the notification was issued was available to the Reference Court, we do not find any reason why the Reference Court shall treat the valuation shown in Exhibit A(4) as a comparable unit for the purpose of fixation of the valuation of the lands acquired. That apart the lands acquired were not within the vicinity of the lands covered under Exhibit A(4) and that being the position, the valuation shown in Exhibit A(4), in our view, would not be treated as a comparable unit for fixation of the valuation of the lands acquired. Similar is the position in respect of Exhibit A(2). As noted above, the Reference Court fixed the valuation on the basis of Exhibit A(2) and A(4) and therefore, erred in holding that the valuation of the lands must be fixed at Rs. 116/- per cottah when the valuation indicated in Exhibit 1(a) which was admittedly 500/600 ft. away from Hill Court Road was available for treating the comparable unit in respect of the land acquired subject to the deduction in the manner indicated herein below:- Therefore, we are of the view that the Reference Court had erred in fixing the valuation of the lands acquired on the basis Exhibit A(2) and A(4) when the other available lands were available for it to fix the valuation that is to say Exhibit 1(a), in our view, could be fixed by the Reference Court as a comparable unit for fixing the valuation of the land acquired. Therefore, in coming to the aforesaid conclusion of fact for the purpose of fixing the valuation at the rate mentioned above, the Reference Court had failed to take into consideration Exhibit 1(a) which is of the year 1949. It is evident from the evidence on record that the lands covered by Exhibit I to 1(c) stand on the Hill Court Road which is in the heart of the Siliguri Town and is a busy thoroughfare with lots of business thereon. On the other hand, the lands acquired stood on the Bardhaman Road which is only 500/600 ft. away from the Hill Court Road. It may be true that the valuation of the lands in the aforesaid two localities although they lie close to each other cannot be same, but in view of the distance as mentioned above, it can be easily said that the valuation of the land in Hill Curt Road and the valuation of the acquired land which was at Burdhaman Road would be nearly the same. Exhibit 1(a) was an agreement for sale that was entered into by the parties on 24th September, 1949, practically the time when the notification issued for acquisition of the lands acquired, shows that for a piece of land measuring about 16 cuttahs in the same area wherefrom the land in question were acquired, were agreed to be sold at a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. This Exhibit 1(a) was not at all considered by the Reference Court. If we take into consideration the valuation shown in Exhibit 1(a), then at least it can be concluded that the valuation fixed by the Reference Court on the basis of the documents produced by the State of West Bengal cannot at all be accepted. In our view, if Exhibit 1(a) was at all considered by the Reference Court, in that case the valuation shown in the documents produced by the State of West Bengal ought to have been held to be too low. As we find that the distance between the roads namely the Hill Curt Road, Exhibit 1(a) and the Burdhaman Road was only 500/600 ft. and in view of the admitted fact that at the relevant point of time, the Hill Court Road had its commercial value and as the lands acquired was only 500/600 ft. away from Hill Court Road, we are of the view that in view of Exhibit 1(a), no reliance could be placed by the Reference Court on Exhibits produced by the State of West Bengal which were not at all near to the lands acquired.;