# 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 373 KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR

- **Citation:** [2011] 14 S.C.R. 373
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-09-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2007
- **Bench:** R.V. Raveendran, Markandey Katju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/14-addl-s-c-r-373-kolkata-metropolitan-development-authority-v-gobinda-chandra-27564
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
falling under Mouza Madurdaha, District 24 Parganas (Sout/1)
within the limits ofKolkata Municipal Corporation - Three plot
C
of lands- plotldag nos. 62 and 42, admeasuring 1. 94 acres
and 0. 61 acres respectively, and classified as Safi land
(agricultural land) and plot no. 242, admeasuring 0. 22 acres,
and classified as beef land (marsh land) - Determination of
compensation -
Collector made award determining the
D
market value of the acquired lands as Rs. 2386 per cottah for
sali land (agricultural land) and Rs.1193 per cottah for beef
land (marsh land) - Reference Court awarded Rs.1,20,000
per cottah for sali plots (plot nos. 62 and 42) and Rs. 60, 000
per cottah for bee/ plot (plot no. 272) with statutory benefits -
E
High Court affirmed the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court -
He/d· On facts and circumstances,
compensation for plot nos. 62 and 42 reduced to Rs. 67, 0001
- per cottah while compensation in regard to plot no.272
maintained at the rate of Rs. 60, 0001- per cottah.
F
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
-
Determination of compensation -
Addition towards
appreciation in value between the date of exemplar sale and
the date of preliminary notification as regards the acquisition
111 question - Held.· Unless the difference 1s more than one
G
year. normally no iJddition should be made towards
opprec1iJlion in value. unless there is special evidence to show
some specific increase within a short period.
373
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
- Detennination of compensation - Addition of percentages
for advantageous frontage - Held: Advantage of a better
frontage is considered to be a plus factor while assessing the
value of two similar properties. particularly in any commercial
B or residential area, when one has a better frontage than the
other -
However where the value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land situated on the periphery of a
city in an area which is yet to be developed is being
determined with reference to value of nearby small residential
c plot. the question of adding any percentage for the advantage
of frontage to the acquired lands, does not arise.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
- Determination of compensation - Deductions from value
of small developed plots to arrive at the value of acquired
D lands - Deduction for development -
Held: The prices
fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation
of large tracts of land and cannot be directly adopted in
valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable
properties - The former reflects the 'retail' price of land and
E the latter the 'wholesale' price - However, if it is shown that
the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use
for building purposes, that building lots that could be laid out
on the land would be good selling propositions and that
valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetiaal layout
F could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small
laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable
small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification
would be relevant - In such a case, necessary deductions for
the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other
G civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by
laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines,
and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of
the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are
to be made - On facts, the Reference Court after considering
H the facts found that 33. 33% (one-third of the value of the small
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 375
CHANDRA MAKAL
developed plot) should be deducted towards developmenV A
development cost, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands
- The High Court did not interfere with th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,940 of 74,049. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39940 for what follows._

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 373
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v
GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
A
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
falling under Mouza Madurdaha, District 24 Parganas (Sout/1)
within the limits ofKolkata Municipal Corporation - Three plot
C
of lands- plotldag nos. 62 and 42, admeasuring 1. 94 acres
and 0. 61 acres respectively, and classified as Safi land
(agricultural land) and plot no. 242, admeasuring 0. 22 acres,
and classified as beef land (marsh land) - Determination of
compensation -
Collector made award determining the
D
market value of the acquired lands as Rs. 2386 per cottah for
sali land (agricultural land) and Rs.1193 per cottah for beef
land (marsh land) - Reference Court awarded Rs.1,20,000
per cottah for sali plots (plot nos. 62 and 42) and Rs. 60, 000
per cottah for bee/ plot (plot no. 272) with statutory benefits -
E
High Court affirmed the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court -
He/d· On facts and circumstances,
compensation for plot nos. 62 and 42 reduced to Rs. 67, 0001
- per cottah while compensation in regard to plot no.272
maintained at the rate of Rs. 60, 0001- per cottah.
F
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
-
Determination of compensation -
Addition towards
appreciation in value between the date of exemplar sale and
the date of preliminary notification as regards the acquisition
111 question - Held.· Unless the difference 1s more than one
G
year. normally no iJddition should be made towards
opprec1iJlion in value. unless there is special evidence to show
some specific increase within a short period.
373
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
- Detennination of compensation - Addition of percentages
for advantageous frontage - Held: Advantage of a better
frontage is considered to be a plus factor while assessing the
value of two similar properties. particularly in any commercial
B or residential area, when one has a better frontage than the
other -
However where the value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land situated on the periphery of a
city in an area which is yet to be developed is being
determined with reference to value of nearby small residential
c plot. the question of adding any percentage for the advantage
of frontage to the acquired lands, does not arise.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Acquisition of land
- Determination of compensation - Deductions from value
of small developed plots to arrive at the value of acquired
D lands - Deduction for development -
Held: The prices
fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation
of large tracts of land and cannot be directly adopted in
valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable
properties - The former reflects the 'retail' price of land and
E the latter the 'wholesale' price - However, if it is shown that
the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use
for building purposes, that building lots that could be laid out
on the land would be good selling propositions and that
valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetiaal layout
F could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small
laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable
small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification
would be relevant - In such a case, necessary deductions for
the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other
G civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by
laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines,
and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of
the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are
to be made - On facts, the Reference Court after considering
H the facts found that 33. 33% (one-third of the value of the small
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 375
CHANDRA MAKAL
developed plot) should be deducted towards developmenV A
development cost, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands
- The High Court did not interfere with the said percentage
of deduction - In the circumstances. no reason to alter the
percentage of deduction of 33. 33%.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 & 23 - Acquisition of 8
land - Determination of compensation - Relevant date -
Adjustment of advance payment - Held. The relevant date
for determination of compensation would be the date of
publication of the preliminary notification under s.4(1) of the
LA Act -However if ir1 anticipation of acquisition the Land C
Acquisition Officer had made any payment to the land owner
they will be entitled to credit therefor with interest at 15% per
annum from the date of payment to dat~ of publication of
preliminary notification -
Though solatium and additional
amount will be calculated on the entire compensation amount,
D
statutory interest payable to land owner will be calculated only
after adjusting the advance payment with interest therein
towards the compensation amount.
Land Acquisition Act. 1894 - ss.4 and 23 - Acquisition E
of land - Determination of compensation - Relevant date for
determining compensation - The notification under section
4(1) of the LA Act was dated 13.9.2000- It was published in
the gazette dated 13.9.2000 - Thereafter it was published in
two newspapers - Lastly, the Collector caused public notice
of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the locality on 16. 11. 2000 - Whether the relevant
date for determination of compensation is 13. 9. 2000 or
F
16. 11. 2000 -
Held. One of the principles in regard to
determination of market value under s.23(1) is that the rise
in market value after the publication of the notification under G
s.4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the
purpose of determination of market value - If the words
'publication of the notification' in s.23(1) (clause firstly) should
be construed as referring to the last of the dates of publication
and public notice. and the date of public notice in the locality
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A is to ·be considered as the date of publication. the landowners
can legitimately claim that the sales which took place till the
date of public notice should be taken into account for the
purpose of determination of compensation, leading to
disastrous results -
In s.23(1), the words "the date of
B publication of the notification under section 4(1)" would refer
to the date of publication of the notification in the gazette -
Therefore, '13. 9. 2000' will be the relevant date for the purpose
of determination of compensation and not 16. 11. 2000.
Interpretation of Statutes - Same words having different
C meanings in different provisions of the same enactment -
Permissibility - Held: The same words used in different parts
of a statute should normally bear the same meaning - But
depending upon the context, the same words used in different
places of a statue may also have different meaning -
The
D use of the words 'publication of the notification' in ss. 4(1) and
6 on the one hand and in s.23(1) on the other, in the LA Act.
is a classic example, where the same words have different
meanings in different provisions of the same enactment - The
words ·publication of the notification under s.4(1) '. are used in
E s. 23(1) for fixing the relevant date for determination of market
value - The words "the last of the date of such publication
and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to
as :he publication of the date of notification" in section 4(1)
and the words 'one year from the date of the publication of
F the notification" in the first proviso to section 6, refer to the
special deeming defiAition of the said words, for determining
the period of one year for issuing the declaration under s. 6.
which is counted from the date of 'publication of the notification·
- The context in which the words are used in ss.4(1) and 6.
G and the context in which the same words are used in s.23(1)
are completely different - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4.
6 and 23.
Three plot of lands- plot/dag nos. 62 and 42,
admeasuring 1.94 acres and 0.61 acres respectively, and
H
· KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV AUTH. v. GOBINDA 377
CHANDRA MAKAL
C'lassified as sali land (agricultural land) and - plot no.242,
A
admeasuring 0.22 acres, and classified as beet land
(marsh land), falling ·under Mouza Madurdaha, District 24
Parganas (South) within the limits of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and belonging to the first respondent along
with surrounding lands were requisitioned by the State
B
Government under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land
(Requisition' & Acquisition) Act, 1948 [WB Requisition
Act] on 27.4.1978. ihe possession of the land was taken
by the Collector in pursuance of such requisition. In
anticipation of the acquisition, the value of the land was
C
assessed under section 8B of the said Act and 80% of
the estimated compensation was paid to the first
respondent. On 7.4.1987, the Collector issued a
notification under section 4(1 a) of the said Act, to acquire
the land, but did not make an award under section 7 of
the said Act. WB Requisition Act was a temporary Act and
D
remained in force only till 31.3.1997. The Land Acquisition
Act 1894 ('LA Act') was amended by West Bengal Act 7
of 1997 (with effect from 2.5.1997) inserting sub-sections
(3A) and (38) in section 9 of LA Act and thereby the
acquisition proceedings under the WB Requisition Act
E
were converted into acquisition proceedings under the
LA Act. But as no award was made within a period of two
years, the said acquisition lapsed under section 11A of
LA Act. Therefore, fresh acquisition proceedings were
initiated by issue of a notification dated 13.9.2000 under
F
section 4(1) of the LA Act (Gazetted on 13.9.2000 and
thereafter published. in the newspapers and pubic notice
of the substance of notification was notified in the locality
on 16.11.2000) followed by a notification dated 27 .11.2000
issued under section 6 of the LA Act (gazetted on
G
28.11.2000).
The Collector made award determining the market
value of the acquired lands as Rs.2386 per cottah [1 acre
= 60 cottahs] for sali (agricultural) land and Rs.1193 per
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A cottah for beel (marsh) land. For this purpose, the
Collector took the average of the value disclosed by the
sale of small plots bearing Dag Nos. 417 and 455 under
deeds dated 15.1.1982, 20.1.1982 and 15.2.1982 and by
providing appreciation at the rate of 5% per year from
8 1982 to 2000, arrived at the value of Rs.144,353/- per acre
or Rs.2386/- per cottah for sali land and Rs.1193/- per
cottah (half of the value of sali land) as the value of beel
land. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent sought
reference to civil court claiming enhancement in regard
C to the three lands.
The first respondent examined an expert valuer as
RCW-1 and also produced and relied upon sale deeds
pertaining to plot nos. 417, 445 and 192 to prove the
market value. The Expert Valuer assessed the value of the
D acquired lands with reference to the sale of Sali plot
No.192, measuring 1.5 cottah sold under a deed dated
10.3.2000 at a price of Rs.1 lakh per cottah. Being of the
view that the acquired plots had a more advantageous
position when compared to plot no.192, the valuer made
E several additions to the value disclosed by sale of plot
no.192. He thereafter made a cut in the value in view of
the larger size of the acquired plots. The valuer assessed
the value of plot No.62 at Rs.143,000 per cottah, plot
No.42 at Rs.135,000 per cottah and plot No.272 at
F Rs.108,000 per cottah.
The Reference Court found that the valuer had
deducted only 15% and 10% from the price of a small
developed plot, to determine the market value of plot
no.62 and plot no.42. He accepted the submission of
G appellants that having regard to situation and nature of
land, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands (large
undeveloped lands) from the value of a small developed
plot (plot no.192), the deduction should be one-third (that
is 33.33%). By making such deduction (instead of 15%
H for plot no.62 and 10% for plot no.42 applied by the
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV AUTH. v. GOBINDA 379
CHANDRA MAKAL
valuer) the Reference Court arrived at the market value A
as Rs.125,000 per cottah for plot no.62 and Rs.112,000 per
cottah for plot No.42. He took the average thereof as
Rs.118,000 and by rounding it off fixed the compensation
as Rs.120,000/- per cottah for sali plots No.62 and No. 42.
The Reference Court also attempted an alternative
method of determining the market value with reference
B
to the four sale-deeds in regard to beef Plots Nos.417 and
445 and held that the valuation of acquired lands with
reference to the said sales statistics would be C
approximately Rs.134,000 per cottah. The Reference
Court found that Plot Nos. 417 and 445 were sold in the
years 1999 and 2000 under four sale-deeds and assumed
the sale price in the year 2000 to be Rs. 80,000/- per
cottah. On the ground that the exemplar plot (No.192) did 0
not have ingress and egress, 25% was added to that
value to arrive at the value of the acquired lands which
had better ingress and egress. Having arrived at a figure
of Rs.1 lakh per cottah, the Reference Court applied a cut
of 33.3% towards development cost and arrived at the
price for beel plots as Rs. 67,000/- per cottah; and as the
E
value of sali plots were double that of beel plots, he
doubled the said figure and arrived at the market value
of sali plots as Rs.1,34,000/-. In v_iew of the above, he
choose to determine the market v.Jlue of Sali land (plot
nos. 62 and 42) as Rs.120,000 per cottah. As the value of F
. beel land was 50% of the value of Sali land, he determined
the market value of beel land (plot no.272) as Rs.60,000/
-. The Reference Court, therefore awarded Rs.120,000 per
cottah for Safi plots (plot nos.62 and 42) and Rs.60,000
per cottah for Beel plot (plot no.272) with statutory G
benefits. The High Court affirmed the compensation
awarded by the Reference Court.
The decision of the High Court was challenged in the
instant apR~ls, on the following grounds:
H
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R
A
(i) The first respondent had himself relied upon four
sale deeds relating to beel lands that is sale deeds dated
8.1.1999, 8.1.1999 and 29.3.2000 relating to plot no.417
and sale deed dated 25.6.1999 relating to plot no.445
disclosing a price of Rs. 70,000, Rs. 70,000, Rs. 65,396
s and Rs. 80,000 per cottah. Though the plots were
described as beel lands in the sale deeds, qualitatively
they were the same as sali lands on account of the fact
that the area had been developed into residential plots
and fell within the municipal corporation limits. Therefore
c the market value of the acquired lands ought to have
been determined with reference to the price disclosed by
the said plots. The Reference Court had wrongly doubled
the value worked out with reference to these sale deeds,
by applying the thumb rule that the value of sali lands
0
were twice that of the value of beel lands;
(ii) Even if the sale deed dated 10.3.2000 relating to
sali plot no.192 should be the basis for determination of
market value, making any additions thereto as per the
Expert Valuer's report on account of appreciation of price
E during eight months, or on account of frontage
advantage or on account of plots facing east, was not
warranted. Therefore the additions of 58% to the value
of plot no.62, 45% to the value of plot no.42 and 58% to
F
the value of plot no. 272 was liable to be set aside;
(iii) Having regard to the fact that the acquired lands
were large tracts of undeveloped land and their sale
price was being determined with reference to value of a
small residential plot namely plot no. 192, the cut or
G deduction towards development and development cost
ought to have been at least 50% instead of 33.33%;
(iv) When possession of the lands were taken in
pursuance of the requisition under the WB Requisition
Act, 80% of the estimated value of the lands was paid to
H the first respondent and the first resa,ondent had
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 381
CHANDRA MAKAL
accepted the same. Therefore what should be paid to the
A
first respondent was only the balance of 20% of the
compensation as was to be determined. As the first
respondent had the benefit of the said advance amount,
from the year 1979, the amount paid as advance with
appropriate interest thereon, should be adjusted against
B
the compensation.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Re : Contention (i) ·:
1. It is possible that Beel lands when developed into
residential plots, by draining, filling and levelling the land,
c
will cease to be Beel in nature. But it is also possible that
0
the plots sold under sale deeds dated 8.1.1999, 25.6.1999
and 29.3.2000 were really Beel plots without any actual
development. There is no evidence to show that these
plots were drained, filled, levelled and made into plots
similar to Sali plots. "the sale deeds refer to these plots
E
as Beel plots. There is no dispute that at the relevant
point of time the Sali plots were considered to be more
valuable than Beel plots. Therefore this Court rejects the
contention of the appellant that the value of these Beel
plots should be treated on par with the value of Sali plots
and that should form the basis for determining the market
value of Sali Plot Nos.62 and 42. But the value of these
Beel plots can be a clear indicator for determining the
value of acquired Beel plot No.272. [Para 11) [398-A-B]
Re : Contention (ii)
2.1. The valuer has added 8% towards appreciation
in value during the period of eight months between the
date of the exemplar sale (10.3.2000) and the date of
preliminary notification (which was taken as 16.11.2000).
The date of publication of the said notification is 13.9.2000.
F
G
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R
A Only about six months had passed from the date of the
exemplar sale deed (10.3.2000), when the preliminary
notification regarding the acquisition was issued in the
same year namely 2000. (The difference would be eight
months even if the date of publication of preliminary
B notification is taken as 16.11.2000). When the relied upon
sale transaction and the preliminary notification are in the
same year, no provision is made:.for any appreciation in
value. Unless the difference is more than one year,
normally no addition should be made towards
C appreciation in value, unless there is special evidence to
show some specific increase within a short period.
Therefore, the addition of 8% to the price (Rs.100,000/-
per cottah) of plot no.192, was unwarranted. [Paras 12,
13] [398-D-H; 399-C]
D
2.2. The Expert valuer has added to the basic value
of Rs. 1,00,000/- (relating to plot No.192), 20% for plot
no.62 for having a frontage'to Anandpur main road, 10%
for plot no.42 for having a frontage to a kutcha KMC road,
and 20% for plot No.272 for having a frontage to a sixty
E feet wide road, on the ground that these three lands were
more advantageously situated when compared to plot
No.192 which faces a narrow eight feet common passage.
The valuer has made one more addition to the basic value
on account of frontage advantage of the acquired plots,
F that is 25%, 20% and 30% respectively for plot nos.62,
42 and 272 for having a frontage on a wider. road thereby
giving the advantage of a better FAR (floor area ratio)
when undertaking construction. Addition of percentages
for advantageous frontage, that too twice was
G unwarranted. Advantage of a better frontage is
considered to be a plus factor while assessing the value
of two similar properties, particularly in any commercial
or residential area, when one has a better frontage than
the other. However where the value of large tracts of
H undeveloped agricultural land situated on the periphery
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV AUTH. v. GOBINDA 383
CHANDRA MAKAL
-
of a city in an area which is yet to be developed is being
A
determined with reference to a value of nearby small
residential plot, the question of adding any percentage
for the advantage of frontage to the acquired lands, does
not arise. Therefore, the entire addition for frontage, that
is 45%, 30% and 50% respectively for plots 62, 42 and
B
272, have to be deleted. [Para 14] [399-0-H; 400-A]
2.3. Lastly, the Expert Valuer has added 5% for plot
No.62 for the advantage of being an east facing plot and
7% for plot no.42 for the advantage of being an east &
C
east/south facing plots. When a large tract of land is
made into several plots, most of the plots will cease to
be east facing. Further, addition in value for facing a
particular direction cannot be accepted. [Para 15] [400B-C]
D
2.4.The addition of 58% for plot nos.62 and 272 and
addition of 45% for plot no.42 have to be deleted/The
market value of plot nos.62 an~ 42, should be arrived at
by making an appropriate cut from the value derived from
sale price of plot No.192, namely Rs. 1 lac per cottah. The
E
market value of plot no.272 should be arrived at by
making an appropriate cut from the market value of
Rs.71,350/- arrived at with reference to sale of beel lands.
[Para 16] [400-D]
ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 4
F
sec 745 - referred to.
Re : Contention (iii)
3.1. The prices fetched for small plots cannot form
G
safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land and cannot
be directly adopted in valuation of large tracts of land as
the two are not comparable properties - the former
reflects the 'retail' price of land and the latter the
'wholesale' price. However, if it is shown that the large
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A
extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for
building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out
on the land would be good selling propositions and that
valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical
layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing
B such small laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale
of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time
of the notification would be relevant. In such a case,
necessary deductions for the extent of land required for
the formation of roads and other civic amenities;
C expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads,
drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest
on the outlays for the period of deferment of the
realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are
to be made. From the value of small plots which
0
represents what may be called the 'retail' price of land,
the 'wholesale' price of land is to be estimated. [Para 17]
[400-F-H; 401-A-C]
3.2. By comparing the situational advantage, existing
development and amenities available to the acquired
· E lands and'the exemplar sale transactions relating to small
plots, and other relevant circumstances, this Court has
made cuts or deductions varying from 20% to 75% from
the value of the small developed plots to arrive at the
value of acquired lands. (401-H; 402-A]
F
3.3. According to the evidence of the Expert Valuer,
plot No.192 the sale price of which has furnished the
basis for determination of market value lies at a distance
(in a straight line, as the crow flies) of 1272 ft. from plot
No.62, a distance of 1750 ft. plot No.42 and a distance of
G 2200 ft. from plot No.272. The water supply lines and
electrical lines were already laid in the roads adjoining
these plots. The appellants had submitted before the
Reference Court and High Court that the cut for
development from the market value of plot No.192 should
H be 33.33%. The Reference Court after considering the
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 385
CHANDRA MAKAL
facts found that 33.33% (one-third of the value of the
A
small developed plot) should be deducted towards
development/development cost, to arrive at the value of
the acquired lands. The High Court has not interfered with
the said percentage of deduction. In the circumstances,
there is no reason to alter the percentage of deduction
B
of 33.33%. [Para 19] [404-0-G]
Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector,
Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150: 1988 (2) SCR 1025; Chimanlal
Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona
C
(1988) 3 SCC 751: 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531; K. Vasundara
Devi vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1995) 5 SCC 426:
. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 376; Basavva vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640: 1996 (3) SCR 500;
Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2001) 7 SCC
650: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573; Atma Singh Thr. LRs. vs.
D
State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568: 2007 (12) SCR 1120;
Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 201: 2008
(10) SCR 367; Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC
769: 2009 (13 ) SCR 622 - referred to.
Re : Contention (iv)
4.1. The market value has to be determined with
reference to the date of publication of the notification
under section 4(1) of LA Act. Though the lands were
requisitioned in the year 1978 and possession was taken
in pursuance of such requisition in 1978-79 and 80% of
estimated value was given as advance under section 88
E
F
in pursuance of notification under section 4(1a) of WB
Requisition Act, the said acquisition notification was not
followed by an award and the acquisition notification was
G
allowed to lapse. What is therefore relevant is the date of
notification under section 4(1) of LA Act in pursuance of
which the acquisition was completed. The relevant date
for determination of compensation would be the date of
publication of the preliminary notification under section
H
• 386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 4(1) of the LA Act. However if in anticipation of acquisition
the appellant/the Land Acquisition Officer had made any
payment to the land owner they will be entitled to .credit
therefor with interest at 15% per annum from the date of
payment to date of publication of preliminary notification.
B In his counter affidavit filed in this Court, first respondent
has alleged that the Collector had paid Rs. 55,875/- for
plot no.62 and Rs. 17,458/- for plot no.42. The payment
is said to be in 1979. Though solatium and additional
amount will be calculated on the entire compensation
c amount, statutory interest payable to first respondent will
be calculated only after adjusting the aforesaid advance
payment with interest therein towards the compensation
amount. [Para 20) [404-H; 405-A-E]
Re : Relevant date for determining compensation
D
4.2. The notification under section 4(1) of the LA Act
is dated 13.9.2000. It was published in the gazette dated
13.9.2000. Thereafter it was published in two newspapers.
Lastly, the Collector caused public notice of the
E substance of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the locality on 16.11.2000. The reference court
and the High Court have proceeded on the basis that the
relevant date for determining the market value is
16.11.2000. The question is whether the relevant date for
F determination of compensation is 13.9.2000 or
16.11.2000. [Para 21) [405-G-H; 406-A-B]
4.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the LA Act
provides the compensation to be awarded shall be
determined by the Reference Court, based upon the
G market value of the acquired land at the time of
publication of the notification under section 4 sub-section
(1). Section 6 of the LA Act was amended in 1984
providing that no declaration under section 6 in respect
of any land covered by a notification under section 4(1)
H shall be made after .the expiry of one year from the date
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 387
CHANDRA MAKAL
of publication of the notification under section 4(1). In that
A
context, to avoid any confusion as to what would be the
date of publication of the notification under section 4(1),
section 4(1) was also amended to clarify the position and
it was provided that "the last of the dates of such
publication and giving of such public notice being herein
B
referred to as the date of publication of the notification".
But the words 'publication of the notification under
section 4(1)' occurring in the first clause of section 23(1)
have different meaning and connotation from the use of
the said words in sections 4(1) and 6 of the LA Act. Prior c
to the 1984 amendment of section 4, the words
"publication of notification under section 4(1)" in section
23(1) referred to the date of publication of the notification
in the official Gazette. Even after the amendment of
section 4(1 ), the said words in section 23(1) continue to
D
have the same earlier meaning. [Paras 22, 23] [406-C-H;
407-A-B]
4.4. One of the principles in regard to determination
of market value under section 23(1) is that the rise in
market value after the publication of the notification
E
under section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into
account for the purpose of determination of market value.
If the deeming definition of 'publication of the notification'
in the amended section 4(1) is imported as the meaning
of the said words in the first clause of section 23(1 ), it will
F
lead to anomalous results. Owners of the lands which are
the subject matter of the notification and neighbouring
lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition,
on the date of publication in the gazette or in the
newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the
G
substance of the notification is delayed by two oi' three
months, there may be several sale transactions in regard
to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike
in value in view of the development contemplated on
account of the acquisition itself. If the words 'publication
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A of the notification' in section 23(1) (clause firstly) should
be construed as referring to the last of the dates of
publication and public notice, and the date of public
notice in the locality is to be considered as the date of
publication, the landowners can legitimately claim that
B the sales which took place till the date of public notice
should be taken into account for the purpose of
determination of compensation, leading to disastrous
results. [Para 24] [407-C-F]
4.5. The same words used in different parts of a
C statute should normally bear the same meaning. But
depending upon the context, the same words used in
different places of a statue may also have different
meaning. The use of the words 'publication of the
notification' in sections 4(1) and 6 on the one hand and
D in section 23(1) on the other, in the LA Act, is a classic
example, where the same words have different meanings
in different provisions of the same enactment. The words
'publication of the notification under section 4 sub-section
(1)', are used in section 23(1) for fixing the relevant date
E for determination of market value. The words "the last of
the date of such publication and giving of such public
notice being hereinafter referred to as the publication of
the date of notification" in section 4(1) and the words 'one
year from the date of the publication of the notification"
F in the first proviso to section 6, refer to the special
deeming definition of the said words, for determining the
period of one year for issuing the declaration under
section 6, which is counted from the date of 'publication
of the notification'. Therefore the context in which the
G words are used in sections 4(1) and 6, and the context
in which the same words are used in section 23(1) are
completely different. In section 23(1 ), the words "the date
of publication of the notification under section 4(1)" would
refer to the date of publication of the notification in the
H gazette. Therefore, '13.9.2000' will be the relevant date for
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 389
CHANDRA MAKAL
.
the purpose of determination of compensation and not A
16.11.2000. [Para 25] [408-G-H; 409-A-D]
Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation
- 12th Edition - Pages 356-358 - referred to.
·
Conclusion
5.1. In regard to plots 62 and 42, by adopting a cut
of 33.33% from the pric;e .. otRs .. 1.001900/..-·disclosed with
reference to the sale of sali plot no.192, the compensation
B
is determined as Rs.66,6671- rounded off to Rs.67,0001- per C
cottah. [Para 26] [409-E-F]
5.2. In regard to plot no.272, it is found that beel land
has been sold for Rs. 70,0001- per cottah on 8.1.1999 and
Rs.80,000/- per cottah on 25.6.1999. Rs.90,0001- per cottah
0
is therefore taken as the market value of small developed
plots by providing a 12% -appreciation per. year with
reference to the sale price on 25.6.1999. By deducting
33.~3% therefron:i, the market value of undeveloped plots
in 2000 would be Rs.60,000/- per cottah. [Para 27] [409E
G]
--·--·
5.3. In view of the above, the compensation for plot
nos.62 and 42 is reduced to Rs. 67 ,000/- per cottah and
while the compensation i9 regard to plot no.272 is
maintained at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per cottah. The first
F
respondent will be entitled to the statutory benefits, that
is, solatium, additional amount and interest in accordance
with the provisions of the LA Act. The appellants will be
entitled to adjust the advance payment made with interest
thereon at 15% PA from the date of such payments to
G .
13.9.2000 towards the compensation payable. [Para 28]
[410-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 4 sec 145
referred to
Para 13
H
A
B
c
D
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
1988 (2) SCR 1025
referred to
Para 17
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531
referred to
Para 17
(1995) 5 sec 426
referred to
Para 17
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 376 referred to
Para 18
1996 (3) SCR 500
referred to
Para 18
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573 referred to
Para 18
2007 (12) SCR 1120
referred to
Para 18
2008 (10 ) SCR 367
referred to
Para 18
2009 (13 ) SCR 622
referred to
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5938 of 2007 etc.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.05.2007 of the High
Court at Calcutta in F.A. No. 15 of 2007.
WITH
E C.A. Nos. 1931, 1932, 1933 of 2008 & 6024, 6025 of 2007.
Pradeep Ghosh, Shati Bhushan, Ranjit Kumar, Anindita
Gupta, Rajesh Srivastava, Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Dhruv
Mehta, Debasis Guin, B.P. Yadav, Sarla Chandra, H.K. Puri,
F S.K. Puri, V.M. Chauhan, Priya Puri for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. These appeals by the Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority (for short KMDA) and the
G State of West Bengal ('State' for short) relate to determination
of compensation for acquisition of the following three lands for
East Calcutta Area Development Project, falling under Mouza
Madurdaha, (JL No.12), District 24 Parganas (South) within the
limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation :
H
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 391
CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Dag (Plot) Area in Cottahs/
Area
Classification
No.
Chitaks
in Acres
of land
(1 acre=60 cottahs)
(1 cottah=16 Chitaks)
62
117 Cottah
1.94 acres
Sali
(Agricultural)
42
37 Cottahs
0.61 acres
Sali
(Agricultural)
272
13 Cottahs 5 Chitaks
0.22 acres
Beel (Marsh)
A
B
. 2. The said lands belonging to the first respondent along
C
with surrounding lands were requisitioned by the State
Government under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land
(Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948 [for short 'WB
. Requisition Act'] on 27.4.1978. The possession of the land was
taken by the Collector in pursuance of such requisition, on
D
8.5.1978, 16.7.1979 and 16.9.1979. tn anticipation of the
acquisition, the value of the land was assessed under section
F
8B of the said Act and 80% of the estimated compensation was
paid to the first respondent in or about 1979. On 7.4.1987, the
Collector issued a notification under section 4(1 a) of the said
E
Act, to acquire the land, but did not make an award under
section 7 of the said Act. WB Requisition Act was a temporary ·
Act and remained in force only till 31.3.1997. The Lahd
Acquisition Act 1894 ('LA Act' for short) was amended by West
Bengal Act 7 of 1997 (with effect from 2.5.1997) inserting subsections (3A) and (3B) in section 9 of LA Act whereby it was
provided that in regard to lands possession of which had been
taken on requisition under the WB Requisition Act, the
proceedings initiated under the WB Requisition Act would
stand converted to proceedings under LA Act upon issuance
G
of appropriate notice. Such notice was issued on 10.12.1997
and the acquisition proceedings under the WB Requisition Act
were converted into acquisition proceedings under the LA Act.
But as no award was made within a period of two years, the
said acquisition lapsed under section 11A of LA Act. Therefore,
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated by issue of a
notification dated 13.9.2000 under section 4(1) of the LA Act
(Gazetted on 13.9.2000 and thereafter published in the
newspapers and pubic notice of the substance of notification
was notified in the locality on 16.11.2000) followed by a
B notification dated 27.11.2000 issued under section 6 of the LA
Act (gazetted on 28.11.2000).
3. The Collector made an award dated 13.12.2001
determining the market value of the acquired lands as Rs. 2386·
per cottah for sali land and Rs. 1193 per cottah for beel land.
C For this purpose, the Collector took the average of the value
disclosed by the sale of small plots bearing Dag Nos. 417, 417
and 455 under deeds dated 15.1.1982, 20.1.1982 and
15.2.1982 and by providing appreciation at the rate of 5% per
year from 1982 to 2000, arrived at the value of Rs. 144,353/-
D per acre or Rs. 2386/- per cottah for sali land and Rs. 1193/-
per cottah (half of the value of sali land) as the value of beel
land. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent sought reference
to civil court claiming enhancement in regard to the three lands.
The three references were registered as LA Nos.47, 77 and
E 78 of 2003.
4. The first respondent examined an expert valuer TC.Roy
as RCW-1 and examined himself as RCW-2. The report of the
expert with its annexures was marked as Ex. 1 and Ex. 1/A and
F the map of Mouza Madurdaha was produced as Ex.2. The first
respondent produced and relied upon the following five sale
deeds (Ex. 7 to 11) to prove the market value :
Date of
Plot
Extent
Price per
Nature
sale
Number
cottah
of land
G
8.1.1999
417
5 cottah
Rs. 70000
Beel
8.1.1999
417
5 cottah
Rs. 70000
Beel
29.3.2000 417
3 cottah 1 chitak Rs. 65,396
Beel
25.6.1999 445
3 cottah 5 sq. ft. Rs. 80,000
Beel
H
10.3.2000 192
1.5 cottah
Rs. 100,000
Sali
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 393
CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
On behalf of the State Government represented by the A
Collector, the award was marked as Ex.A, two sale deeds of
the year 1988 relied upon by the Collector for determining the
market value were marked as Ex.B and 8/1, the determination
of land value by the Collector as Ex.C, calculation-sheet for
payment of 80% ad hoc compensation as Ex.D and an area B
map as Ex.E. KMDA did not lead any evidence.
5. The Expert Valuer assessed the value of the acquired
lands with reference to the sale of Sali plot No.192 Mouza
Madurdaha, Ward No.108, Kolkata Corporation, measuring 1.5
cottah sold under a deed dated 10.3.2000 at a price of . C
Rs.1 lakh per cottah. The access to that plot was through a eight
feet wide. passage. According to the valuer, plot no.62 was by
the side of Anandpur main road of a width of 20 to 25 feet and
Plot No.42 adjoined a kutcha road of a width of about 20 feet.
Being of the view that the acquired plots had a more D
advantageous position when compared to plot no.192, the
valuer made several additions to the value disclosed by sale
of plot no.192. He thereafter made a cut in the value in view of
the larger size of the acquired plots.