Dismissed

State & Anr. v. Santidevi Jalan & Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Feb 2023FA/281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals and cross-appeals in a land acquisition matter. Upholding the Land Acquisition Tribunal Judge's order, the court held that evidence of contemporaneous transactions (Rs.12,000/month) justified rejecting an exorbitant valuation claim (Rs.60,000/cottah).

What did the court decide?

Directing the Registrar General to disburse the deposited awarded amount with accrued interest to the awardees within three weeks.

State & Anr. Vs Santidevi Jalan & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

FA 281 of 2012

¶2

sg Ct. 8

¶3

State of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Santidevi Jalan & Ors.

¶4

With

¶5

COT 4 of 2008 Santidevi Jalan & Ors Versus State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay, Adv.

¶7

Mr. Rezaul Hossain, Adv.

¶8

… for the appellants

¶9

Mr. Sailendranath Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. A. Chakraborty, Adv.

¶10

…for the respondents

¶11

The appeal and the cross-appeal are taken up together and

¶12

disposed of by this common judgment.

¶13

The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree dated 31^st March, 2006 passed by the Learned Judge, L.A. Tribunal Court, Howrah in L.A. Case No. 27 (Act-II) of 1987-1988.

¶14

The judgment is short but it has addressed the issue nicely. Admittedly, the lands of the awardees were acquired for public purpose. The date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act is 20-05-1989. The assessment per cotta was made by the L.A. Department at Rs.5,721/- per cottah. The claimants are the awardees. They are dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Collector and made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶15

In the said proceeding, the awardees claimed that they would be entitled to Rs.60,000/- per cottah. They have relied upon three documents that were marked as Exhibit 1, Exhibit 1(a) and

¶16

¶17

Exhibit 3. Exhibits 1 and 1(a) would show that on the date of the notification, the transaction in relation to the similar lands would be Rs.12,000/- per month. The said transactions are all of 8^th March, 1989. However, the appellants produced one Chartered Engineer and Valuer in support of their enhanced claim of Rs.60,000/- per cottah.

¶18

The learned Trial Court, in our view, has rightly observed that the valuation made by the Chartered Engineer and Valuer was exorbitant in view of the deeds dated 8^th March, 1989 and 14^th February, 1989. The contemporaneous transactions of similar lands situated in the locality were taken as the yardstick for the purpose of assessing the market value of the lands and on that basis, the award of the Collector was modified.

¶19

In view of such unimpeachable evidence showing that the market value of the lands on the date of notification would be Rs.12,000/-, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the L.A. Judge, Howrah.

¶20

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶21

In view of our aforesaid finding, the cross-appeal challenging the award of the Collector also stands dismissed.

¶22

Since, at the time of admission of the appeal, the appellants have deposited entire awarded amount with the learned Registrar General, we direct the learned Registrar General to disburse the amount along with accrued interest upon premature encashment of the fixed deposit to the awardees in accordance with their share and upon proper identification within three weeks from date.

¶23

¶24

(Uday Kumar , J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)

State & Anr. v. Santidevi Jalan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State & Anr. v. Santidevi Jalan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudera Realty Private Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Arnab Mukherjee Vs Rikhia Mukherjee @ Rekhia Mukherjee & Anr.

Amal Mondal Vs Sankari Mondal

Shanti Devi Jalan & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Himendra Kumar Roy Vs Merina Roy

Dhanonjoy Hazra Vs Jugal Manna and Ors.