SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the State, against a judgment passed on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The reference was undertaken at the instance of one Benukar Pal (since deceased), who had prayed for getting compensation at a value higher than that awarded by the Collector, which was Rs. 19,247/-, with solatium, additional compensation, interest as per law since 1975-1976. In course of the proceedings, the said Benukar expired and the present respondent No. 1, being the son of the deceased, was substituted in place of the deceased.
(2.) The first ground urged by the State-appellant is that the Additional District Judge, while sitting in reference under Section 18 of the said Act, awarded compensation in favour of the petitioner, being the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent No. 1, from the date of possession. For arriving at such decision, the Court below proceeded on the premise that the acquisition of the land in question was made under Act II initially in the year 1975-76, which was subsequently "regularized" by virtue of the Amendment Act of 1997 of the said Act, while, in the same breath, coming to the finding that a fresh notification under Section 9(3A) of the said Act had been issued on March 11, 2003. In support of the aforesaid decision, the Referee Judge took into consideration certain extraneous factors, being other judgments passed in different LA cases having no connection with the instant lis. According to counsel for the appellant, it is an admitted position that in the instant case a fresh notice had been issued on March 11, 2003, and the Court below found so. Counsel for the appellant cites Section 9(3A), as introduced by the West Bengal Amendment of 1997 of the said Act, in particular the first proviso thereto, to point out that the date of notice for taking possession as contemplated therein shall be the date of reference for the purpose of determining the value of such land under the Act.
(3.) He next places Section 23(1A) of the said Act, which provides that, in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. He submits that in case of the continuation of old land acquisition proceedings by 'regularization', Section 23 (1A) operates and the relevant starting point for calculation of compensation is the date of notice of possession. However, in the case of a fresh notification as in the present matter, Section 9 (3A) holds the field and compensation is to be computed from the date of the notification and not from the notice of possession. Counsel for the appellant cites in support of this proposition the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. reported at (2002) 1 SCC 142 . While discussing the provisions of the said Act, the Supreme Court has held in the said judgment that it is clear from Section 23(1A) that the starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. In that case, possession of the land had been taken prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification.;