CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus M/S. DOMINION LAND AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 09-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
-
CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
v. 
MJS. DOMINION LAND AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 1995 
[N. VENKATACHALA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. 
A 
B 
Ss.4(1), 6, 9, 10, 11, 23(1), 28/43-Ai:quisition of land-Compensa-
C 
tion-Detennination of-Method of belting adopted on hypothetical building 
layout respecting sale transaction of small plot in vicinity of acquired 
land-Held, inapposite for detennining market value of vast area of land 
acquired if land is situated in uroan locality and detennination of market 
value is possible on basis ·of earlier sale or agreement to sel4 found to be D 
genuine and bonafide, pertaining to portions of very acquired land. 
The State of West Bengal acquired 8.9.4 bighas of land belonging to 
respondent no. 1, for appellant No. 1, Calcutta Metropolitan Development 
Authority, under s.43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, corresponding to 
s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On service of notices under s. 9 E 
and 10 of the L.A. Act, respondent No. 1 submitted a claim statement to 
the Collector in respect of the lands acquired mentioning therein the 
entitlement of respondent no. 2 to a portion of compensation to be awarded 
for the acquired land under an agreement to sell, entered into between the 
two respondents on 3.9.1975. Respondent no. 2 a\so filed a separate claim F 
statement before the Collector for compensation payable to him for the 
acquired land and which was purchased by him from respondent no. 1. 
The Collector by his award dated 5.2.1981, awarded total compensation of 
Rs. 6,33,164 worked out at the rate of Rs. 3,741 per cottab and apportioned 
the amount between respondent no. 1 and 2 as 4,95,317 and Rs. 1,34,847 
respectively. At the instance of the respondents, the Collector made a G 
reference under s.18 of the L.A. Act to Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, 
which enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,206 per cottab and determined 
total compensation as Rs. 7,11,865 respondents No. 1 and 2 still .not 
satisfied, filed two separate appeals in the High Court, which enhanced the 
compensation to Rs. 7,500 per cottah. Appellant no. 1, though not a party H 
121 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A in the reference before the Tribnnal and the High Court, filed the appeals, 
with leave of the Court, against enhancement of compensation. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court committed a manifest error in deter-
B mining the market value of the acquired land by adoption of the method 
of belting on the basis of price fetched in sale transaction pertaining to a 
small plot in the vicinity of the acquired land ignoring the undisputed 
prior of the very acquired land fixed under the transaction of an agreement 
to sell entered into between claimants - respondent-1, the seller, and 
C respondent-2, the intending .purchaser. [132-G-H] 
1.2 Where the land acquired under the L.A. Act cannot be turned 
into building plots for utilisation unless a regular layout of building plots 
on such land is made by laying of roads, drains and after providing the 
amenities for user of such plots for the construction of buildings, conform-
D ing to regulations governing formation of such building layouts, it would 
be inappropriate to determine the market value of such land by resorting 
to the method of belting. [127-A] 
1.3. In any event, adoption of the method of belting or the method of 
hypothetical Building Layout or the method of Comparable Sales in the 
E vicinity, would be inapposite for determining the market value of a vast 
area of land acquired under LA Act, if such land is situated in an urban 
locality, and its determination of such market value is possible on the basis 
of earlier sale/s or agreement/s to sell pertaining to the entire area of the 
very acquired land or portions of it, which would not have taken place in 
F 
the remote past and are found to be genuine and bonafide. [127-C] 
2.1. The agreement to sell, pertaining to the very acquired land, 
executed by respondent-1 in favour of respondent- 2, which is a bonafide 
and genuine transaction, indicates that the market value of the land in the 
condition in which it was between September 3, 1975 and 3rd March, 1983 
G was regarded by the very parties to the agreement to sell at Rs. 4,000 per 
cottah unless the squatters were evicted from the High land through court 
or otherwise and the low lying marshy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.