LexC.E.S.G: LIML1 TED versus SANDHYA RANI BARIK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 137 ,-! C.E.S.G: LIMl1TED A v. SANDHYA RANI BARIK AND ORS. (Civil.Appeal No.7201 of 2005) ·'<. JULY 7, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 - Acquisition under - Of large tract of land - Assess- ment of land value - Just and reasonable compensation - c Held: Armchair assessment of land value has to proceed with common sense and circumspection - For assessing com- pensation, efforts should be to find out the price fixed for simi- tar land in the vicinity - Where a very large plot of land has Ill been acquired and the comparison is sought to be made with a comparatively small piece of land which has been sold. or 0 otherwise dealt with, then in that event, a percentage of t/Je ~ pric_e is to be knocked off because of the largeness itself of the acquired land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in question, cpnstituting a total area of more E than 3 big has, was part of a 10 bigha tract owned previ- ou51y by a single common ancestor. of the Respondents. The said land was acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition· and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for construction -r. ·of an electric sub-station. The Collector awarded compen- F sation @ Rs.50,000/- per cottah (one cottah being equal to 1/20 bigha). Respondents-claimants filed appeals, whereupon the Land Acquisition Judge raised the com- pensation to nearly Rupees 5 lakhs per cottah. CESC, th'e requiring authority under the West Bengal Act, filed writ G petition before the High Court taking the stand that the matter was decided in its absence. The High Court re- manded the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge direct- ing the.Appellant to be made a party. The Land Acquisi- 137 H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A tion Judge again made assessment, but maintained the earlier rate. The determination was challenged before the High Court. The Appellant's main grievance was that large track of land was the subject matter of acquisition and the rates applied for smaller plots could not have any s relevance.The High Court determined compensation @ Rs.2.25 lakhs per cottah and directed that the Respon- dents/~laimants were entitled to rent compensation at the rate of 9% per annum and also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% ·per annum. C Before this Court, the stand of CESC is that the plot acquired for its use was wholly land locked and the rate appiicable therefor could not be as high a$ Rs.5,32,000t· per co·ttah as fixed by the Reference Court; that though the High Court fixed it at Rs.2,25,000/- per cottah, the same D was .also high. Cross appeals have been filed by the claimants seek- ing enhancement of rent and higher rate· of interest. The number of claimants is quite large and about 20. E Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. The armchair assessment of larid value has to proceed with common sense and circumspection. One should attempt to find out the just and reasonable com- pensation without attempting any mathematical precision )- F in that regard. For the purpose of assessing compensa- tion, the effortS should be to find out the price fixed for the similar land in the vicinity. [Para 16] [14S-B & C] .. 2.The difference in the land acquired and the land G sold might take on various aspects. One plot of land might"' be larger, ·another small, one plot of land might have a large frontage and another might have none. There might _.., ' be differences in land development and location. There ~ might be special features which have to be taken note of H and reasonably considered in the matter of assessing C.E.S.C. LIMITED v. SANDHYA RANI BARIK & 139 ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] ,.-~ compensation. [Para 17] [145-D & F] A 3. Where a very large plot of land has been acquired and the comparison is sought to be made with a com- paratively small piece of land which has been sold or oth- erwise dealt with, then in that event, a percentage of the B price is to be knocked off because of the largeness itself of the acquired land. Accordingly, the High Court made the deductions. The High Court also dealt with the ques- tion of land locking and held that it was a special feature which had to be taken note of. [Para 18] [145-E & F] c 4.There is no infirmity in the approach of the High Court. Therefore, the rate fixed by the High Court does not suffer from infirmity. The appeals filed by the CESC, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.