Bhabesh Chandra Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) An award dated August 12, 1969, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being L.D.P Case No. 233 of 1967 (v) is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal as also in the cross objection filed by the claimants-respondents. In our view the impugned award has to be set aside and the reference must go back for reassessment since in view of the latest decision of this court assessment of compensation on the market value as prevailing in December 1946 as made by the learned Judge is not sustainable in law.
(2.) Avast track of land measuring about 161.6066 acres extending over 5 Mouzas, namely, Mouzas Belgharia and Basudevpur within Police Station Baranagore, Mouzas Patna and Uttar Nimta within Police Station DumDum and Mouza Osmanpur within Police Station Khardah was acquired by the appellant State of West Bengal under the provisions of West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for settlement of immigrants who had migrated into the State on account of circumstances beyond their control. It is noting dispute that the relative notification under section 4 of the said Act was published on November I, 1951, while the declaration under section 6 was published & on November 15, 1951. The Collector published an award dated March 21, 1966, for compensation in favour of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 8,15,472.38 assessing the different categories of lands in different Mouzas at different rates. There is no dispute that the Collector in assessing the compensation assessed the same not on the market value as on the date of publication of the notification under section 4 but on the market value as prevailing on December 31, 1946, in view of the condition attached to proviso (b) to section 8(1) of the said Act.
(3.) The claimants felt aggrieved by the assessment so made and filed a petition dated July 22, 1966, claiming reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this petition for reference one of the principal grievances made out was that the Collector went wrong in assessing the compensation on the basis of the market value as prevailing on December 31, 1946, and not on the market value as prevailing on November 1, 1951, the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the said Act. The claimants further challenged the propriety and correctness of the assessment as made even on the basis of the market value as prevailing on December 31, 1946.;