TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ' 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 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 Rs. 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 vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 417 and 445 and held that the valuation of acquired lands with reference to the said sales statistics would be approximately Rs. 134,000 per cottah. The Reference Court found that Plot 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 60,000/-. The Reference Court therefore made an award dated 11.10.2004 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Act, 80% of the estimated value of the lands was paid to the first Respondent and the first Respondent had accepted the same. Therefore what should be paid to the first Respondent was only 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 Rs. 70,000/- per cottah and under the third sale deed is about Rs. 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 Rs. 80,000 per cottah. The average of the four sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) 12. The Reference Court and the High Court have not disapproved or rejected the various additions made by the Expert Valuer for 'advantages' possessed by plot Nos. 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of 58% for plot Nos. 62 and 272 and addition of 45% for plot No. 42 have to be deleted. The market value of plot Nos. 62 and 42, should be arrived at by making an appropriate cut from the value derived from sale price of plot No. 192, namely Rs. 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 Rs. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....See: K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1995) 5 SCC 426; Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640; Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650; 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 statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical sub-stations etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the Rs.deduction for 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is dated 13.9.2000. It was published in the gazette dated 13.9.2000. Thereafter it was published in two newspapers. Lastly, the Collector caused public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality on 16.11.2000. The reference court and the High Court have proceeded 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 und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, on the date of publication in the gazette or in the newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification is delayed by two or three months, there may be several sale transactions in regard to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike in value in view of the 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 Rs. 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....