9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ali (Agricultural) 42 37 Cottahs 0.61 acres Sali (Agricultural) 272 13 Cottahs 5 Chitaks 0.22 acres Beel (Marsh) 2. The said lands belonging to the first Respondent along with surrounding lands were requisitioned by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948 [for short 'WB Requisition Act'] on 27.4.1978. The possession of the land was taken by the Collector in pursuance of such requisition, on 8.5.1978, 16.7.1979 and 16.9.1979. In anticipation of the acquisition, the value of the land was assessed under Section 8B of the said Act and 80% of the estimated compensation was paid to the first Respondent in or about 1979. On 7.4.1987, the Collector issued a notification under Section 4(1a) of the said Act, to acquire the land, but did not make an award under Section 7 of the said Act. WB Requisition Act was a temporary Act and remained in force only till 31.3.1997. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('LA Act' for short) was amended by West Bengal Act 7 of 1997 (with effect from 2.5.1997) inserting Sub-sections (3A) and (3B) in Section 9 of LA Act whereby it was provided that in regard to lands possession of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented by the Collector, the award was marked as Ex.A, two sale deeds of the year 1988 relied upon by the Collector for determining the market value were marked as Ex.B and B/1, the determination of land value by the Collector as Ex.C, calculation-sheet for payment of 80% ad hoc compensation as Ex.D and an area map as Ex.E. KMDA did not lead any evidence. 5. The Expert Valuer assessed the value of the acquired lands with reference to the sale of Sali plot No. 192 Mouza Madurdaha, Ward No. 108, Kolkata Corporation, measuring 1.5 cottah sold under a deed dated 10.3.2000 at a price of ₹ 1 lakh per cottah. The access to that plot was through a eight feet wide passage. According to the valuer, plot No. 62 was by the side of Anandpur main road of a width of 20 to 25 feet and Plot No. 42 adjoined a kutcha road of a width of about 20 feet. Being of the view that the acquired plots had a more advantageous position when compared to plot No. 192, the valuer made several additions to the value disclosed by sale of plot No. 192. He thereafter made a cut in the value in view of the larger size of the acquired plots. The valuer gave a valuation report dated 20.6.2002 assessing the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot Nos. 417 and 445 were sold in the years 1999 and 2000 under four sale-deeds and assumed the sale price in the year 2000 to be ₹ 80,000/- per cottah. On the ground that the exemplar plot (No. 192) did not have ingress and egress, 25% was added to that value to arrive at the value of the acquired lands which had better ingress and egress. Having arrived at a figure of ₹ 1 lakh per cottah, the Reference Court applied a cut of 33.3% towards development cost and arrived at the price for beel plots as ₹ 67,000/- per cottah; and as the value of sali plots were double that of beel plots, he doubled the said figure and arrived at the market value of sali plots as ₹ 1,34,000/-. 8. In view of the above, he choose to determine the market value of Sali land (plot Nos. 62 and 42) as ₹ 120,000 per cottah. As the value of beel land was 50% of the value of Sali land, he determined the market value of beel land (plot No. 272) as ₹ 60,000/-. The Reference Court therefore made an award dated 11.10.2004 awarding ₹ 120,000 per cottah for Sali plots (plot Nos. 62 and 42) and ₹ 60,000 per cottah for Beel plot (plot No. 272) with statutory benefits. Feeli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the balance of 20% of the compensation as was to be determined. As the first Respondent had the benefit of the said advance amount, from the year 1979, the amount paid as advance with appropriate interest thereon, should be adjusted against the compensation. Re: Contention (i): 10. The Appellants submitted that the first Respondent had produced and relied upon four sale deeds relating to Beel lands, and they ought to have been the basis for determination of compensation for the acquired lands. These sale deeds disclosed that three portions of Plot No. 417 measuring 5 cottah, 5 cottah and 3 cottah 1 chitak were sold under sale deeds dated 8.1.1999, 8.1.1999 and 29.3.2000. The price per cottah under the first two sale deeds is ₹ 70,000/- per cottah and under the third sale deed is about ₹ 65,400/- per cottah. The fourth sale deed dated 25.6.1999 relates to sale of 3 cottah and 5 sq.ft. in plot No. 445 which discloses the price paid as ₹ 80,000 per cottah. The average of the four sales would be about ₹ 71,350 per cottah. According to the Appellant though these plots were described as Beel lands because they were originally classified as 'Beel', they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62, 42 and 272. We will consider each of these 'advantages' separately. 13. The valuer has added 8% towards appreciation in value during the period of eight months between the date of the exemplar sale (10.3.2000) and the date of preliminary notification (which was taken as 16.11.2000). The date of publication of the said notification is 13.9.2000. Only about six months had passed from the date of the exemplar sale deed (10.3.2000), when the preliminary notification regarding the acquisition was issued in the same year namely 2000. (The difference would be eight months even if the date of publication of preliminary notification is taken as 16.11.2000). When the relied upon sale transaction and the preliminary notification are in the same year, No. provision is made for any appreciation in value. This Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 4 SCC 745 observed: However, for the purpose of calculation, we have to exclude the year of the relied-upon transaction, which is the base year. If the year of relied-upon transaction is 1987, the increase is applied not from 1987 itself, but only from the next year which is 1988. Therefore, unless the difference is mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value derived from sale price of plot No. 192, namely ₹ 1 lac per cottah. The market value of plot No. 272 should be arrived at by making an appropriate cut from the market value of ₹ 71,350/- arrived at with reference to sale of beel lands. Re: Contention (iii) 17. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150, this Court has explained the principle for valuing large extent of undeveloped urban land with reference to the price fetched by a small developed plot. This Court explained that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land and cannot be directly adopted in valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties - the former reflects the 'retail' price of land and the latter the 'wholesale' price. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small laid out s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Atma Singh Thr. L.Rs. v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 and Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 201], and Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769]. In Lal Chand, this Court gave the following guidelines as to what should be the deduction for development: The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the exemplar plots are situated. The 'deduction for development' consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, play grounds and civic amenities (community facilities) etc. The Development Authority will also incur considerable expenditure f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development' factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. 19. In this case, the evidence shows that plot Nos. 62 and 42 are sali (agricultural) lands, and the plot No. 272 is a beel (marshy) land. Their extents are 1.94 acres, 0.61 acres and 0.22 acres respectively. Plot No. 62 faces a twenty feet wide metalled road. Plot No. 42 faces a twenty feet katcha road. Plot No. 272 faces a 60 feet road. All are situated within the limits of Ward No. 108 of Kolkata Municipal limits and had potential for being developed into residential plots. They were acquired for East Calcutta Area Development Project. According to the evidence of the Expert Valuer, plot No. 192 the sale price of which has furnished the basis for determination of market value lies at a distance (in a straight line, as the crow flies) of 1272 ft. from plot No. 62, a distance of 1750 ft. plot No. 42 and a distance of 2200 ft. from plot No. 272. The water supply lines and electrical lines were already laid in the roads adjoining these plots. The Appellants had submitted before the Reference Court and High Court that the cut for development from the market value of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded on the basis that the relevant date for determining the market value is 16.11.2000. They have also relied upon the expert valuer's report which assessed the market value as on 16.11.2000. We have noticed above that the Expert Valuer determined the market value with reference to a sale deed dated 10.3.2000, by adding 8% as the increase in prices for the period of eight months between 10.3.2000 and 16.11.2000 (at the rate of 1% per month). The question is whether the relevant date for determination of compensation is 13.9.2000 or 16.11.2000. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the Reference Court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1). The first Respondent contends that the 'date of publication of notification under Section 4(1)' is statutorily defined in Section 4(1) (that is the last of the dates, out of the dates of publication of the notification in the official gazette, publication of the notification in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in regional language, and pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself. If the words 'publication of the notification' in Section 23(1) (clause firstly) should be construed as referring to the last of the dates of publication and public notice, and the date of public notice in the locality is to be considered as the date of publication, the landowners can legitimately claim that the sales which took place till the date of public notice should be taken into account for the purpose of determination of compensation, leading to disastrous results. Let us give two illustrations: Illustration A: The market value of the acquired land on 13.9.2000 is ₹ 1,00,000 per acre. A notification under Section 4(1) is published in the gazette on 13.9.2000 and in two newspapers on 14.9.2000. But the public notice in the locality is given only two months later on 16.11.2000. As the land owners in the area come to know about the proposed acquisition and consequential expectations of development in the area, developers and speculators enter the arena and start buying neighbouring lands leading to steep increase in prices. Consequently several sales takes place in October 2000 at rates ranging fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for issuing the declaration under Section 6, which is counted from the date of 'publication of the notification'. Therefore the context in which the words are used in Sections 4(1) and 6, and the context in which the same words are used in Section 23(1) are completely different. In Section 23(1), the words "the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1)Rs." would refer to the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. Therefore, '13.9.2000' will be the relevant date for the purpose of determination of compensation and not 16.11.2000. Conclusion 26. In regard to plots 62 and 42, by adopting a cut of 33.33% from the price of ₹ 100,000/- disclosed with reference to the sale of sali plot No. 192, we determine the compensation as ₹ 66,667/- rounded off to ₹ 67,000/per cottah. 27. In regard to plot No. 272, we find that beel land has been sold for ₹ 70,000/- per cottah on 8.1.1999 and ₹ 80,000/- per cottah on 25.6.1999. We may therefore, take ₹ 90,000/- per cottah as the market value of small developed plots by providing a 12% appreciation per year with reference to the sale price on 25.6.1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
