[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal vs Rubber Products And Moulding Company on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon'ble Justice Uday Kumar
FA No. 84 of 2019
+
CAN 5 of 2022
State of West Bengal
Vs.
Rubber Products and Moulding Company
With
COT 46 of 2021
Rubber Products and Moulding Company
Vs.
State of West Bengal
For the State /Appellant : Mr. Chandi Charan De
Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder
For the Respondent : Mr. Debayan Bera
Mr. Swapan Kar
Hearing concluded on : 10.04.2025
Judgment on : 30.04.2025
Uday Kumar, J.: -
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated
28th June, 2018, passed by the Learned Judge, Land Acquisition Court
2
(3rd Court), at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, in L.R.A. Case No. 23 of
2005, whereby the sum of awarded money was enhanced.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, acquired a total of
6.285 acres of land of various classifications--namely danga, bagan,
bastu, and sali--situated in the mouzas of Bisharpara and Gouripur, for
the implementation of the Nowai Basin Drainage Scheme. The
acquisition was effected on 11th March 1977, and possession of the said
land was handed over to the requiring authority, the Irrigation and
Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal, on 29th April 1977.
3. Out of the total acquired land, an area measuring 1.65 acres belonged to
the referring claimant/respondent/cross-objector, Rubber Products and
Moulding Company. Of this, 0.97 acres fell within R.S. Plot Nos. 1248,
1289, 1250, 1251, 1252, and 1465 in Bisharpara mouza, while the
remaining 0.68 acres were situated in R.S. Plot Nos. 1, 2, 28, 3, and 30
in Gouripur mouza. Within this extent, 0.07 acres were classified as
danga land, while the rest was sali land.
4. Upon receiving requisition from the requiring body, the Land Acquisition
Collector initiated proceedings under L.A.-II/54 of 1976-1977. In
furtherance of the acquisition process, a notification under Section 4(1)
of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II
of 1948), was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1985.
However, due to subsequent amendments to the governing legislation,
the said notification lapsed. As a result, a fresh notification was issued
by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11th March 1997.
3
5. Pursuant to this renewed acquisition process, compensation was
awarded to the land-losers, including the cross-objector/ respondent, on
12th December 2001, in accordance with the procedures laid down by
law. The market value of the land, as assessed by the Collector on the
date of possession (29th April 1977), was determined at the rate of Rs.
76,170/- per acre for Sali class of land, and Rs. 1,14,252/- per acre for
Danga, Bagan, and Bastu classes of land in Mouzas Bisharpara and
Gouripur.
6. Thereafter, on 14th December 2001, the respondent was served with a
notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, informing
him of the award. On 19th December 2001, the respondent accepted the
awarded compensation under protest and, subsequently, submitted a
written application to the Land Acquisition Collector seeking a reference
to the appropriate court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894, for enhancement of compensation. In compliance with this
request, the Collector made a reference to the court along with a
statement in Form 16, outlining the basis on which land value had been
assessed. However, the Collector failed to forward a copy of the award
from which the reference originated, as well as the notice under Section
9(3B) that formed the basis of the award. The reference was registered
before the Land Acquisition Judge as L.R.A. Case No. 23 of 2005.
7. To substantiate its claim, the referring claimant/ respondent/ cross-
objector adduced oral evidence (PW1) and submitted certified copies of
eight sale deeds--each relating to sali land--which were marked as
4
Exhibit Nos. 1 to 8. No sale instances were produced in respect of
danga, bagan, or bastu lands.
8. In contrast, the appellant State did not produce any oral evidence nor
tender any documents in support of the Collector's award. Although the
State filed, by way of firisti, three deeds relating to bagan class land and
seven deeds pertaining to sali class land, none of these documents were
formally tendered in evidence, nor were they marked as exhibits.
According to the contents of these unexhibited documents, the market
value of sali land as of the notification date--11th March 1997--stood at
Rs. 7,56,214/- per acre, while that of danga, bagan, and bastu lands
was Rs. 3,95,267/- per acre.
9. Furthermore, as per the valuation report prepared by the Collector, the
market value of sali land on the date of possession, i.e., 29th April 1977,
was assessed at Rs. 76,170 per acre, whereas the value of danga, bagan,
and bastu lands was determined at Rs. 1,14,252 per acre.
10. Ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 28th June 2018, the learned
Land Acquisition Judge, (3rd Court), Barasat, allowed the reference case
by enhancing the valuation of the danga land at Rs. 10,38,604/- per
acre and sali land at Rs. 27,22,500/- per acre, along with solatium,
additional compensation, rental compensation, and interest. The
operative portion of the judgment is as follows -
i) The compensation was fixed at Rs. 17,167 per cottah (i.e., Rs.
10,38,604 per acre) for danga class land in respect of the
referring claimant's land in Bisharpara mouza, and at Rs.
5
45,000 per cottah (i.e., Rs. 27,22,500 per acre) for sali class
land in respect of the land in both Bisharpara and Gouripur
mouzas.
ii) Solatium at the rate of 30% was awarded on the entire
market value of the land, subject to deduction of amounts already
paid.
iii) Additional compensation at 12% per annum was granted
from the date of notification (11.03.1997) to the date of award
(12.12.2001), subject to deduction of any amount already paid.
iv) Rental compensation at 9% per annum was awarded from the
date of possession (29.04.1977) to the date of notification
(11.03.1997) on the full value of the land, less any amount
already paid by the Collector.
v) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded on the
total compensation (i.e., Land Value + Solatium + Additional
Compensation + Rental Compensation) for one year from the
date of notification, and thereafter at 15% per annum until the
date of actual payment, less the amount already paid.
11. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the appellant-State has preferred the
present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. In the present appeal, the respondent-claimant filed a Cross-Objection
(C.O.T. No. 46 of 2021), contending that the award dated 12th
December 2001 is invalid as it was passed beyond the statutory period
of two years from the issuance of the notice under Section 9(3B) of the
6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the West Bengal
Amendment Act, 1997. The Respondent-Claimant also filed an
application to introduce the Section 9(3B) notice as additional evidence,
which was allowed by this Bench. The said notice is stated to have been
issued on 12th November 1999.
Arguments of the Appellants
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended, inter alia:
a) The Trial Court erred in mechanically relying on unproven sale
deeds (Exhibits 1 to 8), and wrongly classified sali land as
danga land, despite the categorical admission by PW-1 during
cross-examination that the lands in question were all 'Sali'.
b) The Trial Court failed to consider appropriate depreciation for
the large size of the acquired land.
c) Moreover, the sale deeds pertained to small plots which would
not be relevant for determining compensation for large tracts of
land.
d) Mere filing of the certified copy of the sale deeds would not
sufficient. The contents of such deeds are required to be proved
by the petitioner. But the admission of PW-1 that he had no
knowledge of the nature of the land, is insufficient to satisfy this
requirement.
e) The enhancement was granted without valuer's or expert's
report or supporting affidavits. Such report is necessary for the
determination of proper market value of the suit land.
7
f) The Trial Court erroneously awarded interest on rental
compensation, by misapplying Section 23 of the Act of 1894 and
Section 7 of the Act of 1948, thereby resulting in an
impermissible double benefit, adversely affecting the State
Exchequer.
g) The compensation should reflect the market value as of the
1977 notification (date of possession), not the 1997 notification.
h) The respondent-cross objector failed to prove its legal entity and
produce necessary title documents or produce valid authority to
depose, as required.
i) The Cross-Objection (COT 46 of 2021), is not maintainable due
to non-enclosure of the certified copy of the impugned decree, is
the violation of the mandate of Appendix G, Form 3 of the CPC.
j) The respondent-claimant, having accepted compensation and
participated in the reference case, now cannot challenge the
acquisition's validity based on limitation. It would not be
permissible as per the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
k) The appellant emphasized that even after the lack of
justification for admission of the application for additional
evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it was wrongly allowed.
l) Furthermore, the value of the Danga land was increased
without any claim from by reference claimant or any deed of
rebuttal.
m) Learned Trial Judge, in disregard of established principles,
enhanced a well-reasoned award passed by the Land
8
Acquisition Authority under the L.A. Act-I of 1894 and Act-II of
1948, without proper verification and without any supporting
affidavits of Referring Claimants. He relied on the ratio of R.L.
Jain v. DDA (2004) and other, for binding precedents with
regard to the correct interpretation of Sections 23(1), 23(2), and
23(1A) of the 1894 Act.
n) The cross objection is not maintainable. In respect of the cross-
objection is legally untenable, the appellant relied on the ratio of
Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
(2023) and other.
o) It was also asserted that the current appeal has been preferred
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 54 of the LA
Act -I, 1894.
Arguments of the Respondent-Claimant
13. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended inter alia:
a) learned Land Acquisition Judge erred in accepting undervalued
and unexhibited sale deeds (being Exhibit 7) relied upon by the
Collector for sali land valuation, and discarding other higher-
valued contemporaneous sale deeds of adjacent lands (being
Exhibits 1, 3 and 4) in Bisharpara mauza. Learned Trial Judge
acted in contrary to the binding principle that highest exemplar
or sale instances should be taken into consideration by the
Collector for determination of valuation of acquired lands as laid
down in Chaturbhuja Jajoo v. State of M.P., (2009) 12 SCC 113.
9
b) The award dated 12th December 2001 is void ab initio as it was
made beyond the statutory limit of two years from 12th
November 1999, the date of issuance of the notice under Section
9(3B) of the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1997. The Reference Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on
the legality of award. (Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board
Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 175, para 12 ; Union of India v. Mohanlal
Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628, para 9).
c) The learned Judge had wrongly denied benefits under Section
23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in West
Bengal by the West Bengal Act XIX of 1999. The rate of rental
compensation was erroneously reduced without specifying it
was per annum.
d) The sale deed of a part of the acquired land (Exhibit 7) was the
best basis for valuation. Certified copies of documents are
admissible without examining vendors and vendees. During the
proceedings before the Reference Court, the respondent had led
oral evidence and had filed eight sale deeds (Exhibits 1 to 8), all
of which pertained to land classified as Sali. Among these,
Exhibit 7--relating to Plot No. 51 of Mouza: Gouripur, which
had itself been part of the acquired land--had been identified
and accepted as the most appropriate and reliable basis for
valuation. It is now settled position of law that the sale of the
acquired land or a part thereof constituted the best method for
assessing market value as emanates from the view of Hon'ble
10
Supreme Court in M/S Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Saiyadan, AIR
1994 SC 1160, para 7; Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtra,
(1996) 2 SCC 152, paras 4-5.
e) Furthermore, the certified copy of a sale deed is admissible
including its content. As such the contents of the deeds are not
required to be proven by examining vendors and vendees, as
decided in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC
270, While the State had filed certain sale deeds through a
Firisti, the same had neither been proved by any witness nor
had they been marked as exhibits. As such, the reference court
had correctly declined to place reliance upon them.
f) No deduction for the largeness of acquisition was warranted
given the nature of the project and the developed area, is now
binding precedents as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major
General Kapil Mehra v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262, paras
29-32; Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1992 SC
2298, para 13; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC
568, para 17. Consistent with said binding precedents, the
reference court had rightly refrained from deducting any
amount on the ground of largeness of acquisition, as the land
had been acquired for the Nowai Basin Drainage Scheme and
there had been no requirement for developmental work such as
roads or drainage.
g) The Cross-Objection and the application for additional evidence
were maintainable under the relevant legal provisions and
11
precedents, as the COT application bearing the trappings of
applications as held in AIR 2023 SC 3110.
14. Having carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides, the
evidence on record, and the relevant legal principles, the following
questions / issues arise for our consideration:
i. What would be the relevant date for determining the
market value of the acquired land?
ii. Whether the Trial Court's reliance on the exhibited sale
deeds for valuation was legally sound?
iii. Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector is valid in light of the limitation period prescribed
under the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1997?
iv. Whether the Trial Court correctly granted solatium,
additional compensation, rental compensation, and
interest?
v. Whether the Cross-Objection filed by the respondent-
claimant is maintainable?
Relevant Date for Market Value Determination/Calculation
15. The cornerstone of land acquisition compensation is the determination
of market value of the lands. The primary principle governing the
determination of market value is enshrined in Section 23(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that the market value should be
ascertained as on the date of the publication of the notification under
Section 4(1), which corresponds to the 1997 notification in this case.
12
16. In the present case, the acquisition proceedings, under which the
award was ultimately passed, commenced with the fresh notification
dated 11th March 1997, while initial possession was taken much earlier
in 1977.
17. The Trial Court, in enhancing the compensation, appears to have
considered the market value prevailing closer to the date of the award,
aiming for a just compensation. However, the legally relevant date for
primary valuation remains the date of the notification.
18. However, we cannot ignore the significant time lag between the initial
taking of possession and the final award. The Supreme Court, in cases
of such protracted delays, has recognized the need to ensure just and
fair compensation, acknowledging the erosion of monetary value over
time. While the 1997 notification date remains the legally relevant point
for valuation, the subsequent enhancement by the learned Land
Acquisition Judge likely reflects an attempt to provide a more realistic
compensation in light of the prevailing market conditions at a later
stage.
Admissibility and Relevance of Sale Deeds
19. The comparable sales method is the accepted mode of determining
market value. The respondent presented eight sale deeds for sali land,
which the learned Judge found to be credible as the respondent's
witness's testimony remained unchallenged by the State. The State,
while questioning the procedural aspects of adducing these documents
and their relevance due to the small size of the plots, failed to present
13
any convincing evidence to discredit their genuineness or to offer
superior comparable instances for sali land.
20. Regarding the danga land, the learned Judge appropriately considered
the sale deeds provided by the State, as the respondent offered no
comparative instances for this classification.
21. The argument by the appellant regarding the need for depreciation due
to the large size of the acquired land was rightly rejected by the learned
Judge. The developed nature of the area and the specific purpose of
acquisition (a drainage scheme, not requiring extensive internal
development) negated the necessity for such deductions, aligning with
established legal precedents.
22. The comparable sales method is a well-recognized and accepted
principle for determining market value as held in Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 313. The onus
lies on the claimant to adduce reliable sale instances of comparable
land situated in the vicinity and executed around the time of the
notification. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by
both parties, placed reliance on the sale deeds exhibited by the
Respondent-Claimant for sali land and the unexhibited deeds
(considered for want of better evidence from the respondent-claimant)
for danga land. The Appellant-State's challenge to the proof of these
documents, particularly the certified copies, is not sustainable in light
of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270, which held
that certified copies are admissible as evidence of the contents of the
original documents. The rejection of depreciation for the large size of the
14
land is also in line with the principles laid down in Bhagwathula
Samanna v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1992 SC 2298, where it was held
that deductions for large tracts are not automatic and depend on the
nature of the land and the purpose of acquisition.
23. Therefore, we find no compelling reason to overturn the learned Land
Acquisition Judge's reliance on the presented sale deeds for assessing
the market value of the different classifications of land. The Judge
undertook a factual assessment of the evidence, and the appellant has
not demonstrated any perversity in this evaluation.
Validity of the Award (Limitation)
24. This is the crux of the Cross-Objection. The admitted date of issuance
of the Section 9(3B) notice is 12th November 1999, and the award was
declared on 12th December 2001. The West Bengal Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1997, introduced a specific timeline for the
declaration of the award, which, as per the facts presented, appears to
have been exceeded. An award made beyond the statutory limitation
period is void and without jurisdiction. The plea of approbate and
reprobate cannot validate an inherently invalid award. The additional
evidence [Section 9(3B) notice] brought on record through the allowed
application supports the Respondent-Claimant's contention on
limitation.
25. The respondent-claimant's Cross-Objection raises a crucial issue of the
award's validity based on the delay in its pronouncement beyond the
statutory limitation period following the Section 9(3B) notice. The
admitted date of the Section 9(3B) notice is 12th November 1999, and
15
the award was declared on 12th December 2001. This timeline clearly
exceeds the two-year limitation period stipulated by the West Bengal
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997.
26. The West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, which
inserted Section 11A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its
application to West Bengal, prescribed a period of two years from the
date of service of notice under Section 9(3B) for the making of the
award.
27. The law is clear on this point that an award made beyond the
prescribed limitation period is considered to be without jurisdiction
and legally invalid.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held consistently that an award
made beyond the statutory limitation period is without jurisdiction and
void ab initio.
29. The additional evidence, the Section 9(3B) notice as adduced by cross-
objector, clearly establishes that the award was made beyond the
stipulated two-year period. The Appellant-State's argument based on
the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is untenable as it cannot
validate an award that is fundamentally void due to a statutory bar.
30. The appellant's argument based on the doctrine of approbate and
reprobate cannot cure a fundamental defect in the award's legality. The
acceptance of compensation and participation in the reference
proceedings do not validate an award that was passed in violation of
the statutory time limit.
16
31. We must clarify here that we have taken on record the Section 9(3B)
notice as additional evidence since the same, being a part of the
records produced as per our direction by the State itself, is a public
document and, as such, admissible in evidence without necessitating
the further rigmarole of unnecessarily remanding the matter merely for
formal proof of the same. Moreover, the production of such additional
evidence is covered by Clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure since, being the appellate court, we require the said
document for proper and complete adjudication of the lis.
Maintainability of the Cross-Objection
32. Since the provisions of a regular first appeal are applicable to the
present appeal against an award enhancing compensation, we, as the
appellate court, have ample power under Sections 96 and 107, read
with Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to
examine the validity and legality of the genesis of the impugned award,
which is the original award granting compensation.
33. Based on the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the
Cross-Objection filed by the Respondent-Claimant challenging the
validity of the award on the ground of limitation is well-founded and
must be allowed. The award dated 12th December 2001, having been
passed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the West Bengal
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, is legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court enhancing
the compensation based on such invalid award cannot be upheld.
17
34. However, keeping in view the fact that the land was acquired for a
public purpose and has been utilized for the Nowai Basin Drainage
Scheme since 1977, and to ensure that the Respondent-Claimant
receives just and fair compensation as mandated by Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to direct the initiation of
fresh proceedings for the determination of compensation.
Logical Conclusion
35. Based on the analysis above, we arrive at the following conclusions:
a. While the market value should ideally be assessed as on the
date of the 1997 notification, the learned Land Acquisition
Judge's enhancement likely aimed at providing fairer
compensation considering the long passage of time.
b. The learned Land Acquisition Judge's reliance on the sale
deeds presented by both parties for determining the market
value of sali and danga land appears to be based on a
reasonable assessment of the evidence on record.
c. The respondent's cross-objection regarding the validity of the
award due to the delay beyond the statutory limitation
period is substantiated by the evidence presented. The
award, having been passed more than two years after the
issuance of the Section 9(3B) notice, is legally untenable.
Decision
36. In the light of the above analysis, we find that the Cross-Objection
raised by the Respondent-Claimant regarding the bar of limitation on
18
the award is well-founded and must be upheld. The award dated 12th
December 2001, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-
Parganas, is declared invalid as it was made beyond the statutory
period prescribed under the West Bengal Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1997.
37. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which
enhanced the compensation based on such invalid award, cannot be
sustained.
38. However, recognizing that the land was acquired for a public purpose
in 1977 and has been utilized accordingly, and to ensure that the
Respondent-Claimant receives just compensation as mandated by
Article 300A of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to
direct fresh proceedings for the determination of compensation.
39. Therefore, while we find no significant infirmity in the learned Land
Acquisition Judge's assessment of the market value based on the
evidence presented, the fundamental issue of the award's validity due
to the bar of limitation raised in the cross-objection must prevail.
ORDER
i. The Appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal (F.A. 84 of
2019) is dismissed on merit. The enhanced compensation
awarded by the Trial Court, is found to be invalid.
ii. The Cross-Objection (C.O.T. No. 46 of 2021) filed by the
Respondent-Claimant, Rubber Products and Moulding
Company, is allowed.
19
iii. The award dated 12th December 2001, passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, is hereby set aside as
being barred by limitation.
iv. The Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, is directed
to initiate fresh proceedings for the determination of
compensation for the acquired land belonging to the
Respondent-Claimant, in accordance with the provisions of the
existing statute governing the issue, taking into account the
market value of the land as on the date of the Section 4(1)
notification (11th March 1997) and other legally permissible
factors, including solatium, additional compensation, rental
compensation, and interest as applicable under the law.
v. The compensation already paid to the respondent-claimant need
not be refunded but shall be duly adjusted in the fresh
determination.
vi. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal and cross-
objection.
40. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the
necessary formalities in this regard.
I Agree
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J) (Uday Kumar, J)
20
Later:
After the pronouncement of judgment, Learned Advocate for the
appellant/cross-objector submits that State has deposited 50 per cent of the
awarded amount lying with Learned Registrar General of this Court.
Let the said amount be refunded to the State with interest subject to
deduction of statutory charges as and when so approached.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J) (Uday Kumar, J)
[ad_2]
Source link