The State of West Bengal Vs. Lohit Kumar Roy
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2467 of 1980
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.109 of 1977)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.109 of 1977)
Petitioner: The State of West Bengal
Respondent: Lohit Kumar Roy
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2467 of 1980
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.109 of 1977)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.109 of 1977)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 24, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Tapas Ray, Senior Advocate, Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, Ms. Aruna Banerjee, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 4(1) – Notification again issued in 1964 after lapsing of 1956 notification – Document relied by reference court for en-hancing compensation appeared to be brought into inflate market value – Justified in doubting correctness – Award of High Court set aside and remitted to reference Court.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the “Act”) initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequent-ly the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @ Rs.2,310/- per acre. In this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 735, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre relying upon Ext.1(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisition and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this document came to be executed between the parties who are claiming higher com-pensation. It would be obvious that after the first notifica-tion was issued and before the second notification came to be published this document was brought into existence to inflate the market value. Under these circumstances, the High Court in another case was well justified in doubting the correctness of it. Unfortunately, except that document, there is no other evidence for enhancement of the compensation. But in view of the fact that large extent of the lands are involved and we do not have the advantage of any other evidence or assistance from respondents, we are not inclined to confirm the award of the Collector. Under these circumstances, we set aside the award of the court and the High Court and remit the matter to the refer-ence Court to decide the compensation afresh on the basis of the evidence vis-a-vis any other reference pending before it having similar facts and decide the matter according to law.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstanc-es, without costs.
1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the “Act”) initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequent-ly the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @ Rs.2,310/- per acre. In this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 735, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre relying upon Ext.1(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisition and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this document came to be executed between the parties who are claiming higher com-pensation. It would be obvious that after the first notifica-tion was issued and before the second notification came to be published this document was brought into existence to inflate the market value. Under these circumstances, the High Court in another case was well justified in doubting the correctness of it. Unfortunately, except that document, there is no other evidence for enhancement of the compensation. But in view of the fact that large extent of the lands are involved and we do not have the advantage of any other evidence or assistance from respondents, we are not inclined to confirm the award of the Collector. Under these circumstances, we set aside the award of the court and the High Court and remit the matter to the refer-ence Court to decide the compensation afresh on the basis of the evidence vis-a-vis any other reference pending before it having similar facts and decide the matter according to law.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstanc-es, without costs.
