TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Classification of land 62 117 Cottah 1.94 acres Sali (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 forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Extent Price per cottah Nature of land 8.1.1999 417 5 cottah ' 70000 Beel 8.1.1999 417 5 cottah ' 70000 Beel 29.3.2000 417 3 cottah 1 chitak ' 65,396 Beel 25.6.1999 445 3 cottah 5 sq. ft. ' 80,000 Beel 10.3.2000 192 1.5 cottah 100,000 Sali On behalf of the State Government represented 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 ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 per cottah 6. The Reference Court on considering the evidence was of the view that the valuation by the expert valuer should be accepted subject to one modification. The Reference Court found that the valuer had deducted only 15% and 10% from the price of a small developed plot, to determine the market value of plot No. 62 and plot No. 42. He accepted the submission of Appellants that having regard to situation and nature of land, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands (large undeveloped lands) from the value of a small developed plot (plot No. 192), the deduction should be one-third (that is 33.33%). By making such deduction (instead of 15% for plot No. 62 and 10; for plot No. 42 applied by the valuer) the Reference Court arrived at the market value as ₹ 125,000 per cottah for plot No. 62 and ₹ 112,000 per cottah for plot No. 42. He took the average thereof as ₹ 118,000 and by rounding it off fixed the compensation as ₹ 120,000/- per cottah for sali plots No. 62 and No. 42. 7. The Reference Court also attempted an alternative method of determining the market value with reference to the four sale-deeds in regard to beel Plots N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been determined with reference to the price disclosed by the said plots. The Reference Court had wrongly doubled the value worked out with reference to these sale deeds, by applying the thumb rule that the value of sali lands were twice that of the value of beel lands. (ii) Even if the sale deed dated 10.3.2000 relating to sali plot No. 192 should be the basis for determination of market value, making any additions thereto as per the Expert Valuer's report on account of appreciation of price during eight months, or on account of frontage advantage or on account of plots facing east, was not warranted. Therefore the additions of 58% to the value of plot No. 62, 45% to the value of plot No. 42 and 58% to the value of plot No. 272 was liable to be set aside. (iii) Having regard to the fact that the acquired lands were large tracts of undeveloped land and their sale price was being determined with reference to value of a small residential plot namely plot No. 192, the cut or deduction towards development and development cost ought to have been at least 50% instead of 33.33%. (iv) When possession of the lands were taken in pursuance of the requisition under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 350 per cottah and by deducting one-third (33.33%) therefrom towards development, the value of the acquired lands irrespective of whether they are Sali or Beel, should be fixed as ₹ 47,570 per cottah. 11. We have carefully considered the said contention. It is possible that Beel lands when developed into residential plots, by draining, filling and levelling the land, will cease to be Beel in nature. But it is also possible that the plots sold under sale deeds dated 8.1.1999, 25.6.1999 and 29.3.2000 were really Beel plots without any actual development. There is No. evidence to show that these plots were drained, filled, levelled and made into plots similar to Sali plots. The sale deeds refer to these plots as Beel plots. There is No. dispute that at the relevant point of time the Sali plots were considered to be more valuable than Beel plots. Therefore we reject the contention of the Appellant that the value of these Beel plots should be treated on par with the value of Sali plots and that should form the basis for determining the market value of Sali Plot Nos. 62 and 42. But the value of these Beel plots can be a clear indicator for determining the value of acquired Beel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a better FAR (floor area ratio) when undertaking construction. Addition of percentages for advantageous frontage, that too twice was unwarranted. Advantage of a better frontage is considered to be a plus factor while assessing the value of two similar properties, particularly in any commercial or residential area, when one has a better frontage than the other. However where the value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land situated on the periphery of a city in an area which is yet to be developed is being determined with reference to a value of nearby small residential plot, the question of adding any percentage for the advantage of frontage to the acquired lands, does not arise. Therefore, the entire addition for frontage, that is 45%, 30% and 50% respectively for plots 62, 42 and 272, have to be deleted. 15. Lastly, the Expert Valuer has added 5% for plot No. 62 for the advantage of being an east facing plot and 7% for plot No. 42 for the advantage of being an east east/south facing plots. When a large tract of land is made into several plots, most of the plots will cease to be east facing. Further, addition in value for facing a particular direction cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or block of land of say 10,000 sq.yds or more. Firstly, while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. 18. By comparing the situational advantage, existing development and amenities available to the acquired lands and the exemplar sale transactions relating to small plots, and other relevant circumstances, this Court has made cuts or deductions varying from 20% to 75% from the value of the small developed plots to arrive at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. The Rs.deduction for development' with references to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.... If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary). Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed lay out, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay out or an industrial layout.... Some of the layouts formed by statutory Development Authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What is therefore relevant is the date of notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act in pursuance of which the acquisition was completed. Therefore, the relevant date for determination of compensation would be the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. However in anticipation of acquisition the Appellant/the Land Acquisition Officer had made any payment to the land owner they will be entitled to credit therefor with interest at 15% per annum from the date of payment to date of publication of preliminary notification. In his counter affidavit filed in this Court, first Respondent has alleged that the Collector had paid ₹ 55,875/- for plot No. 62 and ₹ 17,458/- for plot No. 42. The payment is said to be in 1979. Though solatium and additional amount will be calculated on the entire compensation amount, statutory interest payable to first Respondent will be calculated only after adjusting the aforesaid advance payment with interest therein towards the compensation amount. Re: Relevant date for determining compensation 21. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 13.9.2000. It was published in the gazett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st clause of Section 23(1) have different meaning and connotation from the use of the said words in Sections 4(1) and 6 of the LA Act. Prior to the 1984 amendment of Section 4, the words publication of notification under Section 4(1) in Section 23(1) referred to the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Even after the amendment of Section 4(1), the said words in Section 23(1) continue to have the same earlier meaning. We may briefly indicate the reasons for our said conclusion. 24. One of the principles in regard to determination of market value under Section 23(1) is that the rise in market value after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value. If the deeming definition of 'publication of the notification' in the amended Section 4(1) is imported as the meaning of the said words in the first clause of Section 23(1), it will lead to anomalous results. Owners of the lands which are the subject matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the gazette or in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of acquired lands to create evidence of higher market value by managing nominal sale/s in regard to some neighbouring land which is not the subject of acquisition at a price of ₹ 2,00,000/- as against the market price of ₹ 1,00,000/- and thereby cause a huge loss to the state. 25. The same words used in different parts of a statute should normally bear the same meaning. But depending upon the context, the same words used in different places of a statue may also have different meaning. [See: Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation - 12th Edition -Pages 356-358]. The use of the words 'publication of the notification' in Sections 4(1) and 6 on the one hand and in Section 23(1) on the other, in the LA Act, is a classic example, where the same words have different meanings in different provisions of the same enactment. The words 'publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1), are used in Section 23(1) for fixing the relevant date for determination of market value. The words the last of the date of such publication and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the publication of the date of notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
