SMT. LILA GHOSH (DEAD) THROUGH LR SHRI TAPAS CHANDRA ROY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 18-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. LILA GHOSH (DEAD) THROUGH LR SHRI TAPAS 
A 
CHANDRA ROY 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
NOVEMBER 18, 2003 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVAANDH.K. SEMA,JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Compact block of /and-Acquisition of-For purpose of film studio- C 
Compensation amount-Entitlement of-Held: Valuating the land on basis of 
adjoining land acquired in 1974, price of which fixed at Rs.11260 per cottah 
on basis of sale instances of small plots of land-Giving appreciation of 5% 
for frontage, 5% depreciation for largeness, appreciation of 10% per annum, 
which is 95% for 9 112 years, value of the land would be Rs. 21,957 per D 
cottah-Hence claimants entitled to compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 
21,95 per cottah with all other statutory benefits under the Act. 
Belting method-Applicability of-Held: When land is not i;icquired for 
development into small plots belting method is not applicable. 
Compensation amount-Interest-Date of payment-Discussed-On 
facts, compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 21,957 per cottah and if after 
giving credit for amount paid or deposited, it is found that compensation 
payable has not been paid or deposited, interest would be payable from the 
date of award 
Rerpondent-State Government acquired compact block of land for 
purpose of film studio and paid Rs.11,00,000 in advance of acquisition. 
Notification was published in the locality. Thereafter, award was passed and 
value ofland was fixed at Rs.10,940 per cottah and Rs.5,65,726 was awarded 
E 
F 
for the structures. Solatium at the rate of 30% was awarded and also G 
additional compensation at the rate of 12% from the date of publication of 
notification to the date of award. Aggrieved claimant filed a Reference. No 
evidence of any sale instance was led by any party. Parties relied upon the 
judgment in respect of acquisition of an adjoining property. Reference Court 
valued the property in various ways. It took the value of Rs.11,260 per cottah 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A given in the earlier judgment for that portion of the acquired land which was 
farthest from the road. It applied belting method, gave appreciation of 10% 
per annum for 9 1/2 years as earlier acquisition was of 1974, gave 
appreciation of 10% for potentiality and 10% for largeness and then took 
average of figures and arrived at Rs.27,000 per cottah. It also increased the 
B value of the structure to Rs.9,04,360 and granted interest from the date of 
requisition of property. Still not being satisfied the claimant filed an appeal 
Respondents filed cross-objections. High Court fixed the value of the land at 
Rs.31,300 per cottah holding that Reference Court having fu:ed compensation 
on the basis of earlier judgment could not have proceeded to compute 
compensation on any other basis and that the belting method was the correct 
C method and directed that interest was payable from 8th December, 1986. Hence 
the cross appeals. 
Claimants contended that a compact block of land was acquired for the 
purposes of a film studio and so there was no necessity to use the belting 
method; that the Reference Court and the High Court have both given 10% 
D towards potentiality and this must be maintained; that there must be a 10% 
appreciation for largeness which both the Reference Court and the High Court 
has given; that there must be 10% appreciation as Metro Railway Station is 
stone throw away from this land; that in the earlier judgment there was a 
deduction of 20% and this deduction should be added back; and that the 
E interest has to be paid from the date of taking possession. 
Respondent-State contended that the interest is payable under Section 
34 of the Land Acquisition Act, only when compensation is payable and the 
same is not paid or deposited and this compensation is payable only after an 
award is made, interest running from the date of the Award; and that in the 
F instant case, claimant had already received a very large amount prior to the 
award being made and if these amounts are taken into consideration, the 
amounts being paid or deposited interest would not be payable under Section 
34. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the. appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. Regarding valuation of land acquired in the instant case, on 
the basis ofvaluation of the adjoining land, the land in the instant case had 
frontage of only 170 ft on less wide road, appreciation of 5% can be given for 
frontage. In the earlier judgment averaging price of sale instance

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.