K.J. Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal assails the judgment and decree passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge in L.D.P. Case No. 35 of 1980(V) dated 23rd December 1987. The land in question was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (in short the said Act). Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents/claimants applied for reference of this matter before the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore. It was contended before the learned Judge that the Collector had passed the award taking into consideration the market value as provided in the proviso to Sec. 8 of the said Act. The learned Judge after taking into consideration the market value that prevailed on the date of notification, which was produced on behalf of the State; and also the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to a conclusion that the respondents/claimants were entitled to Rs. 14,846/ - per cottah, being the market value prevailing on the date of notification. That apart 12% under Sec. 23(1A) and 30% under Sec. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was also awarded. The respondent/claimants were also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said value per cottah from 3rd of January, 1974 to 2nd of January, 1975 and further 15% per annum from 3rd of January, 1975 till payment was made by the Collector. '
(2.) Attacking the judgment and award of the learned Judge, Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the appellant (State of West Bengal), submits that under the provisions of Sec. 8, particularly the proviso to the said section, the learned Judge fell in error in accepting the market value of the land prevailing on the date of notification as the date, for taking into account the market value has been specifically provided in the statute itself. In support of his submission, Mr. Banerjee contends that though initially the Supreme Court, in the case of State of West Bengal v/s. : [1954]1SCR558 , held the aforesaid provision as ultra vires but in view of deletion of the provision of Article 31 and further amendment of the aforesaid provision in 1955, the provision of the said proviso has full force. And in that context evidence was adduced, before the learned Judge, relying on the market value prevailing in the year 1946, as mentioned in the proviso. This being the position, according to Mr. Banerjee, the judgment, passed by the learned Judge, is totally perverse and is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same should be set aside and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector should be restored.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent/claimants, on the other hand, contends that the proviso to Sec. 8 of the said Act has been declared ultra vires by a decision of this Court which was subsequently affirmed by a Supreme Court decision reported in 1954 SCR 558, State of West Bengal v/s. Bela Banerjee and as such it has lost all its force and cannot have any applicability in the instant case. His further contention is that the subsequent amendment of the Constitution by way of deletion of Article 31 followed by insertion in the 9th Schedule and further subsequent amendment of the said Act in 1955 re -introducing the same provision has no value in the eye of law in view of three subsequent Division Bench decisions of this Court. He has drawn our attention to the decisions reported in : AIR1972Cal487 , Monoranjan Routh and Ors. v/s. : AIR1975Cal325 , Ramendra Nath Nandi and Ors. v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors. and, 1979(2) CLJ 169 , State of West Bengal v/s. Land Development Bureau represented by Jiban Krishna Nandan and Ors. and contends that the learned Judge has followed the provision of law rightly by allowing the market value prevailing on the date of notification and not the date mentioned in the proviso to Sec. 8.;