Case: Mathura Prasad Rajgarhia &amp; Others Vs. State of West Bengal

1. An area of land known as "premises No. 104". Narkeldanga Main Road, in the town of Calcutta admeasuring 39 bighas and 19 cottahs (63980 sq. yards) was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by a notification published on August 1, 1946. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on June 12, 1947. The land was situated at the junction of Narkeldanga Main Road and Kankurgachi Road and had a frontage on the Narkeldanga Main Road of 675 feet and on the Kankurgachi Road of 629 feet.2. Before the Collector the appellants claimed Rs. 27,00,000/as compensation for the land. The Collector by his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarded Rs. 10,38,700/as compensation for the land, and Rs. 800/The appellants applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The reference was heard by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. 2,54,2401and 15 % solatium.4. The appellants and the State of West Bengal appealed to the High Court of Calcutta. The appeal filed by appellants was dismissed and the appeal of the State was partly allowed. The High Court awarded to the appellants Rs. 11,59,430/as compensation and statutory solatium of 15% in addition thereto. Against the award made by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants, with certificate granted by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
We, however, do not think it necessary to dilate upon this question further, because, in our view, the award made by the High Court reducing the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be justified on the evidence on the record, and the law applicable thereto. We accede to the request of Mr. Gupte appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal not to express our opinion on the meaning of the expression "disposition of the land" as used in Rule 9 of the Schedule to the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, as it stood at the date when the land was declared to be needed by the Calcutta Improvement Trust under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.It is common ground that In Calcutta the period between the years 1941 and 1947 was abnormal. During this period first there was bombing of some parts of the town by the Japanese Air Force. This resulted in a large exodus from the town. After the migrant returned, there were communal riots which were followed by the partition of the Province of Bengal. Notwithstanding these abnormal events. in the price level of the land there was an upward trend which was accentuated by the influx of refugees from East Pakistan. It was found by the Tribunal that as a result of theof these events there was between 1941 and 1947  rise of 80% in the value of the land. This, the High Court called, the increase in the price of the land on account of the "time factor". This 80% increase was not restricted to the area which was served by the improvement schemes. In the view of the Tribunal there was a general rise in the price level of the land all over the town, and with that view the High Court agreed. But the High Court still held that in respect of the land benefited by schemes Nos.M2 the rise in land values should be taken to be 80% above the 1941 level.15. In our judgment, the High Court was in error in so holding. Appreciation in the price level in localities served by the Schemes and localities not served by the Schemes cannot be assumed to be uniform. If in respect of the localities not covered by the improvement schemes there was a rise of 80%, for the lands served by the supplementary schemes the rise would be appreciably higher because of the better amenities available as a result of those two schemes. The finding of the Tribunal that the rise of 80% in the value of the lands in the town of Calcutta between 1941 and 1947 was a finding on a question of fact, was accepted by the High Court, as it was bound to accept in an appeal under the Act. The High Court was also bound to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the additional 25% was attributable to the two schemes. That conclusion was not without evidence. In determining the value of land at the date of declaration on the basis of value at an earlier date, it would often be difficult to determine the operation of different factors contributing to the increase in the value of the land, and the valuer may generally take into account the overall rise due to the various factors operating upon the land in determining the market value of the land compulsorily acquired. It would certainly have been more consonant with principle if the Tribunal had instead of bifurcating the appreciation into 80% on account of the general conditions and 25% on the aggregate on account of the special conditions adopted a composite increase. But we are unable to agree that the valuation of the improvements resulting from Schemes Nos.M2 was "completely artificial and speculative". We do not again agree with the High Court that the valuation was not based on "correct principles of valuation". Nor are we able to hold that because the Tribunal did not determine a composite increase resulting from theof all factors, and determined the appreciation from the "time factor" and the additional amenities separately, the conclusion is open to any seriousHigh Court recorded no reasons for assuming that the increase in the price of lands served by the improvement schemes and not served by the schemes will be the same. In effect the High Court discarded without assigning any reasons, the appreciation resulting from the application of the improvement schemes.17. The Tribunal is a statutory body consisting of an expert in valuation with whom are associated assessors. In determining the value of the lands,of various factors has to be taken into account. An Appellate Court may be justified in interfering with the valuation of land made by the Tribunal if it be shown that the Tribunal made an error of principle, or has ignored or misconceived important evidence which substantially affected the valuation that its conclusion was vitiated because of substantial error or defect of procedure. We are unable to hold that the judgment of the Tribunal is open to challenge on the ground of error of principle or other infirmity which justified the High Court in interfering with the conclusion of the Tribunal. The valuation of the land by the Tribunal on the basis that the front belt on the Narkeldanga Main Road should be valued at Rupees 3,400/and adjustments should be made in respect of the rear two belts, and the overall value should be reduced by 121/2% on the ground that a large area of land was acquired, must be accepted as correct.It appears, however, that in Ext. 42 the Collector was not guided solely by the agreement between the claimant and the Improvement Trust Board: he had determined the value of the structures, the value of the fixtures, the value of the machinery, the value of the land, and had made an award for the value determined by him. The valuation of the land was based on the agreement between the claimant and the Improvement Trust Board. The Collector accepted the agreement, which, he was not bound to but could accept and made an award on the basis of the agreed figure. The award had some evidentiary value. The land was being acquired for the Improvement Trust. The Improvement Trust is a statutory body, exercise of the power of which is controlled by the provisions of the Act. Even granting that the order made by the Collector pursuant to the agreement between the Board and the claimant be not regarded as an award, the order made by consent furnished good and cogent evidence of an agreement to purchase property at its market value at the date of the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even if an order made by the Collector valuing land with the consent of the acquiring authority and the claimant may not strictly be regarded as an award made on a consideration of all the relevant materials, the agreement formally reached between the acquiring authority and the claimant agreeing to a certain amount to be paid as compensation for the land acquired is good evidence of the market value of the land. The Tribunal relied upon Ext. 42 as furnishing good evidence of the market value at the relevant time of the land under acquisition. The Tribunal was of the view that a completed contract between the claimant and the Board was a good and sufficient evidence of the price of land. The Collector accepted the agreement and made an award on the basis thereof. It would require strong and cogent reasons to displace the value of the evidence furnished by the order. The award cannot be said to be "null and void". The Tribunal accepted the award and on the basis of that award determined the value of the adjacent land which was also sought to be acquired under the same notification. The Tribunal did not on that account commit any error of law which would justify the High Court in interfering with the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal.19. The Tribunal also relied upon Ext. 35 which furnished some evidence of the value of the land. The Tribunal accepted Exts. 42 and 35 as forming the basis for calculating the market value of the land under acquisition. Sitting in appeal under Section 77A of the Calcutta Improvement Act, the High Court could not set aside the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on a matter of valuation.20. The valuation of the Kankurgachi belt made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court must therefore be accepted.21. No argument was advanced in regard to the additional 1% for vista". The valuation of the land abutting on the Narkeldanga Main Road first belt at Rs. 3,400/and adjusting the value in respect of the two rear belts, therefore, must be accepted as correct.22. The Tribunal reduced the price determined on the valuation made by it on the basis of Et. 42 and the value of premises No. 43J by 121/2% in the aggregate. On this part of the case no argument has been advanced before us by either side.23. On the view taken by us, without expressing any opinion on the question whether within the meaning of R. 9 of the Schedule to the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, disposition of the land at the date of the publication of the declaration relating thereto under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act justifies the Court in taking into account the potentialities of the land, we are of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal was not vitiated by any such error as would attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 77A of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911.