T.Chatterjee,J. - (1.) These two appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and award passed by Shri A.K.DUTTA, Additional District Judge, Birbhum dated 2nd August, 1969 whereby the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")was disposed of F.A.682 of 1972 has been preferred by the State of West Bengal whereas F.A.266 of 1970 has been preferred by the claimant Arun Kr.Ghosh.
(2.) The plot in question was the Plot No. 1643 of Mouza-Saithia, P.S.Saithia, District Birbhum as fully described in the sheet submitted in this case by the Government of West Bengal. The plot in question was acquired by a notification made on 30th October, 1964. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 28th January, 1967. For enhancement of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, a reference application under Section 18 of the Act was filed at the instance of the claimant Sri Arun Kumar Ghosh. One of the disputes that was raised by the claimant before the Reference Court related to the price that was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector relating to awarding of compensation to the claimant in respect of the acquired land It is an admitted position that an area measuring 69 acres of land out of the aforesaid plot was acquired by the above said notification The acquired land was classified as the Danga Class of Land. The price of the acquired land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs. 24,000/-per acre and accordingly, the value of land under the award in respect of the acquired land came to a sum of Rs. 16,560/- and added to this price a compensation of 15% amounting to Rs. 2484/-. The total amount as price on compensation awarded in favour of the claimants came to be a sum of Rs. 19,000/. The claimant however, in his objection-petition claimed the value of the acquired land prevailing in or about the time of notification and declaration at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per cottah which on calculation amounted to over 4 lacs per acre. At the time of hearing before the Reference Court, the claimant however, relented to bring down this price of the acquired land to about 5,000/- per cottah which would also amount to Rs. 3 lacs per acre. In support of the claim of the claimant regarding the valuation of the land acquired on the date of notification, the claimant produced and or filed documents before the Reference Court. The State of West Bengal also in support of their case regarding the valuation of the acquired land also produced and/ or filed documents. On consideration of the documents produced by the respective parties and also the oral evidence adduced by them, the Reference Court came to a conclusion that neither of the documents produced by the State authorities could be acceptable for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land. The Reference Court also held that the price of the land acquired on the basis of the sale deed produced by the State of West Bengal in order to assess the probable market price of the land acquired was improper and unjust. From the aforesaid finding of the Reference Court, it is, therefore, clear that the documents produced by the State of West Bengal in order to show the valuation of the land acquired in or about the time of issuing the notification could not be relied on by it for the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation for the land acquired. However, the Reference Court after coming to a conclusion of fact that the documentary evidence adduced by either of the parties was of no help in coming to a proper decision as to the price of the disputed land held that the only alternative left with it to fall back upon the estimated net submitted by the State of West Bengal and to pick up those particular lands mentioned therein which, according to maps Exhibits 4 and 4/1, and in consequence of the Court's personal inspections could be thought to be somewhat comparable to the disputed land. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Reference Court took the average of valuation of the plots mentioned in the judgment and came to finding that Rs, 35.000/- per acre should be fixed for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, the Reference Court allowed the petition under Section 18 of the Act by holding that the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 38,000/- per acre and the claimant would be admissible to interest upon the estimated amount of price at the rate of 6% from the date of order till realisation. Both the parties were aggrieved by this award and, therefore, have preferred the aforesaid two appeals.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Subhas Ch. Bose for the State of West Bengal and Mr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharyya for the claimant. Let us first deal with the F.A.No. 687 of 1972 which has been filed by the State of West Bengal. According to Mr. Bose, the valuation shown in the documents produced by the State of West Bengal in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been accepted by the Reference Court and on the basis of such valuation ought to have assessed or fixed valuation of the acquired land. Mr. Bose further argued that in any view of the matter, the valuation shown in the plots mentioned in the judgment under reference on which reliance was placed by the Reference Court was improper and illegal and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on such valuation for the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation in respect of the land acquired. For this purpose, we have carefully perused the judgment of the Reference Court and we are in full agreement with Reference Court that the valuation shown in the documents produced by the State of West Bengal could not be treated in the facts and circumstances of the case and on materials on record as the comparable unit for the purpose of fixation of the rate of compensation in respect of the acquired land. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Bose that the documents produced by the State of West Bengal ought to have been taken as a comparable unit for the purpose of fixing the valuation of the land acquired That apart, in view of our findings made hereinafter in F.A.N 266/1970 we do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Bose.;