TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... according to the classifications of the lands and awarded acquisition compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha for paddy land, @ Rs. 5,300/-per bigha for 'Bustee land on the basis of the award of the Arbitrator in another land acquisition case No. 228 of 1962, without making any endeavour to make any agreement, as required under 'the Act.' The claimants being dissatisfied made representations and the Arbitrator was appointed to determine compensation. On the basis of the claims and counter-claims of the parties, the Arbitrator framed the following issues :-- (1) Whether compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner for acquisition of lands of the claimants was reasonable, fair and adequate if not what should be the fair and adequate compensation to be awarded for acquisition of lands of the claimants? (2) Whether the compensation granted for trees, jirats and crass by the Deputy Commissioner was fair and adequate? If not what should be adequate for jirats, trees and crops? (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to get 15% additional compensation as a solatium for compulsory acquisition for their lands over the total compensation? (4) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... private and public institutions the market price of the lands considerably increased since before the date of acquisition. All these were proved by the claimants by adducing evidence. Learned Arbitrator held that the acquired area was in a developing area where various factors, including establishments of various important development projects, public as well as private institution contributed to augment the monetary value or the market price of the lands in the area. The learned Arbitrator also held that the acquired laud had special boons benefits and conveniences like good communication with the City of Gauhati and other parts of Assam. There are various bazars, namely, Kahikuchi Bazar, Jogipara Bazar, Dhuptola Bazar, Azara Bazar, Mirza Bazar close to the acquired land. The claimant also proved that in Arbitration Case No. 193 of 1970, the Arbitrator awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per bigha, in another compensation case i. e. Misc. Case No 35 of 1972 the Arbitrator had awarded compensation @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha, annual recurring compensation @ Rs. 300/- per bigha vide Ext. 5. It is apposite to state at this stage that the Collector preferred an appeal against the said aw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of errors of records the learned Arbitrator did not award just compensation for the acquisition and requisition of the land. However, there is no cross appeal by the claimants. It hag been submitted by Mr. R. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Claimants Respondents that they had no fund to fight litigations. On perusal of the records we find that the present lands are in the vicinage of Naren Kalita's land. Mr. D. W Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate found difficulties in wriggling out the binding decision of this Court in Naren Kalita's case (supra) and the admitted position set out above. 5. On perusal of the evidence of these cases we find that there is enough evidence regarding the upswing, development and progress of the areas by leaps and bounds preceding the date of acquisition of the present lands. There is no manner of doubt that the area becomes very very important by and before the date of the present acquisition. Naturally, there was a strong demand for land in the area. There is direct transport and communication with the city of Gauhati. The area falls within the Greater Gauhati Master plan. It is not within the city but is better situate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... acquisition. We merely point out to Section 8(3) of 'the Act' and the view expressed by us in Naren Kalitas case (supra). We have conclusively held that the compensation payable for acquisition of land under Section 7 of 'the Act' should be the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in open market, if it had remained in the condition as it was at the time of requisitioning, and been sold on the date of acquisition. We have held in Naren Kalita's case (supra) that the price to be fetched in such open market must be between a free buyer and a free seller and the awardee is entitled to the price of the land on the date of acquisition. For the reasons set-forth in Naren Kalita's case (supra) we hold that the award of acquisition compensation was much less than the open market price of the land which should have been Rs. 12,000/- per bigha on the basis of the principles of Naren Kalita's case (supra). 7. Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, has submitted that the possession of the land was taken on 4-5-1969 and the learned Arbitrator awarded recurring compensation from 4-5-1968 which was not the date of taking possession.....