ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, J. - (1.) THE present appeal originated from a common judgment passed by Ld. L. A. Judge Spl. Court -1 in L. R. A. nos. 115/90(V), 116/90(V), 117/90 (V), 118/90(V) and 120/90 (V) u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.) THE background of the instant appeal is that the appellants of the above -noted reference cases felt themselves aggrieved and dissatisfied with the awards passed by L.A. Collector, 24 Parganas (at present South 24 Parganas) at Alipore, as the concerned L.A. Collector acquired the land in question (i.e. plot no. 4023, 4228 & 4225) for East Calcutta Area Development Project and awarded compensation arbitrarily against each of the appellants in their respective cases, at a low rate, and that prompted them to file the application u/s. 18 of the Act for making reference to court on the following grounds (Which are common in all cases): - (a) That the Collector assessed the valuation of land at a rate which was too low, and thus inadequate and improper compensation was awarded in favour of the appellants/petitioners. According to the appellants compensation should have been assessed @ Rs. 30,000/ - (rupees thirty thousand only) per cottah. (b) That the assessment of the Collector's valuation is wrong for vital omission. (c) That the Collector's award is otherwise wrong in fact and process and ought to be modified. (d) That the referring claimants are entitled to get Statutory Allowance @ 30% and Rental Compensation at the rate of 6% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realization. On the basis of such objection raised by the claimants, those matters were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Learned Land Acquisition Judge upon hearing all concerned and after considering the evidence of both parties, allowed the claims of the Appellants on contest against the Acquisition Authorities (i.e. the L.A. Collector and the K.M.D.A.) by assessing the Market Value of the acquired property @ Rs. 10,000/ - per cottah and other incidental benefits as provided by section 23 (1) (A) & (2) of the L.A. Act, 1894 were also granted.
(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied once again by the order of the L.A. Court, the present appeals have been preferred and since common question of law and fact are involved in these L.A. proceedings, these appeals were heard together. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the findings arrived at by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge in L.R.A. Case no. 115/90 (v) to L.R.A. 118/90 (v) and L.R.A. 120/90(v) and pointed out that Learned Land Acquisition Judge did not take into consideration the judgments passed in other L.A. Cases which had direct bearing on the matter in issue in the present reference cases. By referring to the certified copies of the judgments (Ext. -1 series), he pointed out that several judgments of various courts including two judgments delivered by two different Division Benches of this Court were produced before Learned Land Acquisition Judge in course of hearing, to support his contention that the valuation of the acquired properties of the petitioners was calculated at a much lower price than the market price at which other similarly situated land in the Mouza Kasba was assessed in the other contemporaneous land acquisition proceedings under the same project, but those judgments were not taken into consideration by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge in their proper perspective. He also pointed out with reference to the map of the concerned area (Kasba) in sheet no. 10 (Ext ­ 3(a)) that the valuation of the property nearer to the plots in question being the subject matter (i.e. plot no. 4210 Mouza Kasba) in L.R.A. Case no. 179/1993 (v) (Ext. -1) was assessed by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge @ Rs. 20,000/ - per cottah and the award passed in the said reference was also accepted by the State Respondent. Drawing our further attention to the certified copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court (Ext. 1(a), he confidently urged that in similar circumstances the valuation of plot no. 4202 of Mouza Kasba was assessed by the Hon'ble Division Bench @ Rs. 20,000/ - per cottah. Accordingly, he invited to modify the impugned decrees in the same line as it was done in the judgments/decrees in these proceedings being Ext.1 and Ext. 1(a);