IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar FA No. 84 of 2019 + CAN 5 of 2022 State of West Bengal Vs. Rubber Products and Moulding Company With COT 46 of 2021 Rubber Products and Moulding Company Vs. State of West Bengal For the State /Appellant : Mr. Chandi Charan De Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta Mr. Hare Krishna Halder For the Respondent : Mr. Debayan Bera Mr. Swapan Kar Hearing concluded on : 10.04.2025 Judgment on : 30.04.2025 Uday Kumar, J.: - 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2018, passed by the Learned Judge, Land Acquisition Court 2 (3rd Court), at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, in L.R.A. Case No. 23 of 2005, whereby the sum of awarded money was enhanced. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, acquired a total of 6.285 acres of land of various classifications—namely danga, bagan, bastu, and sali—situated in the mouzas of Bisharpara and Gouripur, for the implementation of the Nowai Basin Drainage Scheme. The acquisition was effected on 11th March 1977, and possession of the said land was handed over to the requiring authority, the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal, on 29th April 1977. 3. Out of the total acquired land, an area measuring 1.65 acres belonged to the referring claimant/respondent/cross-objector, Rubber Products and Moulding Company. Of this, 0.97 acres fell within R.S. Plot Nos. 1248, 1289, 1250, 1251, 1252, and 1465 in Bisharpara mouza, while the remaining 0.68 acres were situated in R.S. Plot Nos. 1, 2, 28, 3, and 30 in Gouripur mouza. Within this extent, 0.07 acres were classified as danga land, while the rest was sali land. 4. Upon receiving requisition from the requiring body, the Land Acquisition Collector initiated proceedings under L.A.-II/54 of 1976–1977. In furtherance of the acquisition process, a notification under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948), was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1985. However, due to subsequent amendments to the governing legislation, the said notification lapsed. As a result, a fresh notification was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11th March 1997. 3 5. Pursuant to this renewed acquisition process, compensation was awarded to the land-losers, including the cross-objector/ respondent, on 12th December 2001, in accordance with the procedures laid down by law. The market value of the land, as assessed by the Collector on the date of possession (29th April 1977), was determined at the rate of Rs. 76,170/- per acre for Sali class of land, and Rs. 1,14,252/- per acre for Danga, Bagan, and Bastu classes of land in Mouzas Bisharpara and Gouripur. 6. Thereafter, on 14th December 2001, the respondent was served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, informing him of the award. On 19th December 2001, the respondent accepted the awarded compensation under protest and, subsequently, submitted a written application to the Land Acquisition Collector seeking a reference to the appropriate court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for enhancement of compensation. In compliance with this request, the Collector made a reference to the court along with a statement in Form 16, outlining the basis on which land value had been assessed. However, the Collector failed to forward a copy of the award from which the reference originated, as well as the notice under Section 9(3B) that formed the basis of the award. The reference was registered before the Land Acquisition Judge as L.R.A. Case No. 23 of 2005. 7. To substantiate its claim, the referring claimant/ respondent/ cross- objector adduced oral evidence (PW1) and submitted certified copies of eight sale deeds—each relating to sali land—which were marked as 4 Exhibit Nos. 1 to 8. No sale instances were produced in respect of danga, bagan, or bastu lands. 8. In contrast, the appellant State did not produce any oral evidence nor tender any documents in support of the Collector’s award. Although the State filed, by way of firisti, three deeds relating to bagan class land and seven deeds pertaining to sali class land, none of these documents were formally tendered in evidence, nor were they marked as exhibits. According to the contents of these unexhibited documents, the market value of sali land as of the notification date—11th March 1997—stood at Rs. 7,56,214/- per acre, while that of danga, bagan, and bastu lands was Rs. 3,95,267/- per acre. 9. Furthermore, as per the valuation report prepared by the Collector, the market value of sali land on the date of possession, i.e., 29th April 1977, was assessed at Rs. 76,170 per acre, whereas the value of danga, bagan, and bastu lands was determined at Rs. 1,14,252 per acre. 10. Ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 28th June 2018, the learned Land Acquisition Judge, (3rd Court), Barasat, allowed the reference case by enhancing the valuation of the danga land at Rs. 10,38,604/- per acre and sali land at Rs. 27,22,500/- per acre, along with solatium, additional compensation, rental compensation, and interest. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows - i) The compensation was fixed at Rs. 17,167 per cottah (i.e., Rs. 10,38,604 per acre) for danga class land in respect of the referring claimant’s land in Bisharpara mouza, and at Rs. 5 45,000 per cottah (i.e., Rs. 27,22,500 per acre) for sali class land in respect of the land in both Bisharpara and Gouripur mouzas. ii) Solatium at the rate of 30% was awarded on the entire market value of the land, subject to deduction of amounts already paid. iii) Additional compensation at 12% per annum was granted from the date of notification (11.03.1997) to the date of award (12.12.2001), subject to deduction of any amount already paid. iv) Rental compensation at 9% per annum was awarded from the date of possession (29.04.1977) to the date of notification (11.03.1997) on the full value of the land, less any amount already paid by the Collector. v) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded on the total compensation (i.e., Land Value + Solatium + Additional Compensation + Rental Compensation) for one year from the date of notification, and thereafter at 15% per annum until the date of actual payment, less the amount already paid. 11. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. In the present appeal, the respondent-claimant filed a Cross-Objection (C.O.T. No. 46 of 2021), contending that the award dated 12th December 2001 is invalid as it was passed beyond the statutory period of two years from the issuance of the notice under Section 9(3B) of the 6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1997. The Respondent-Claimant also filed an application to introduce the Section 9(3B) notice as additional evidence, which was allowed by this Bench. The said notice is stated to have been issued on 12th November 1999. Arguments of the Appellants 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended, inter alia: a) The Trial Court erred in mechanically relying on unproven sale deeds (Exhibits 1 to 8), and wrongly classified sali land as danga land, despite the categorical admission by PW-1 during cross-examination that the lands in question were all ‘Sali’. b) The Trial Court failed to consider appropriate depreciation for the large size of the acquired land. c) Moreover, the sale deeds pertained to small plots which would not be relevant for determining compensation for large tracts of land. d) Mere filing of the certified copy of the sale deeds would not sufficient. The contents of such deeds are required to be proved by the petitioner. But the admission of PW-1 that he had no knowledge of the nature of the land, is insufficient to satisfy this requirement. e) The enhancement was granted without valuer’s or expert’s report or supporting affidavits. Such report is necessary for the determination of proper market value of the suit land. 7 f) The Trial Court erroneously awarded interest on rental compensation, by misapplying Section 23 of the Act of 1894 and Section 7 of the Act of 1948, thereby resulting in an impermissible double benefit, adversely affecting the State Exchequer. g) The compensation should reflect the market value as of the 1977 notification (date of possession), not the 1997 notification. h) The respondent-cross objector failed to prove its legal entity and produce necessary title documents or produce valid authority to depose, as required. i) The Cross-Objection (COT 46 of 2021), is not maintainable due to non-enclosure of the certified copy of the impugned decree, is the violation of the mandate of Appendix G, Form 3 of the CPC. j) The respondent-claimant, having accepted compensation and participated in the reference case, now cannot challenge the acquisition's validity based on limitation. It would not be permissible as per the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. k) The appellant emphasized that even after the lack of justification for admission of the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it was wrongly allowed. l) Furthermore, the value of the Danga land was increased without any claim from by reference claimant or any deed of rebuttal. m) Learned Trial Judge, in disregard of established principles, enhanced a well-reasoned award passed by the Land 8 Acquisition Authority under the L.A. Act-I of 1894 and Act-II of 1948, without proper verification and without any supporting affidavits of Referring Claimants. He relied on the ratio of R.L. Jain v. DDA (2004) and other, for binding precedents with regard to the correct interpretation of Sections 23(1), 23(2), and 23(1A) of the 1894 Act. n) The cross objection is not maintainable. In respect of the cross- objection is legally untenable, the appellant relied on the ratio of Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (2023) and other. o) It was also asserted that the current appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 54 of the LA Act -I, 1894. Arguments of the Respondent-Claimant 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended inter alia: a) learned Land Acquisition Judge erred in accepting undervalued and unexhibited sale deeds (being Exhibit 7) relied upon by the Collector for sali land valuation, and discarding other higher- valued contemporaneous sale deeds of adjacent lands (being Exhibits 1, 3 and 4) in Bisharpara mauza. Learned Trial Judge acted in contrary to the binding principle that highest exemplar or sale instances should be taken into consideration by the Collector for determination of valuation of acquired lands as laid down in Chaturbhuja Jajoo v. State of M.P., (2009) 12 SCC 113. 9 b) The award dated 12th December 2001 is void ab initio as it was made beyond the statutory limit of two years from 12th November 1999, the date of issuance of the notice under Section 9(3B) of the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997. The Reference Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the legality of award. (Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 175, para 12 ; Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628, para 9). c) The learned Judge had wrongly denied benefits under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in West Bengal by the West Bengal Act XIX of 1999. The rate of rental compensation was erroneously reduced without specifying it was per annum. d) The sale deed of a part of the acquired land (Exhibit 7) was the best basis for valuation. Certified copies of documents are admissible without examining vendors and vendees. During the proceedings before the Reference Court, the respondent had led oral evidence and had filed eight sale deeds (Exhibits 1 to 8), all of which pertained to land classified as Sali. Among these, Exhibit 7—relating to Plot No. 51 of Mouza: Gouripur, which had itself been part of the acquired land—had been identified and accepted as the most appropriate and reliable basis for valuation. It is now settled position of law that the sale of the acquired land or a part thereof constituted the best method for assessing market value as emanates from the view of Hon’ble 10 Supreme Court in M/S Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Saiyadan, AIR 1994 SC 1160, para 7; Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 152, paras 4–5. e) Furthermore, the certified copy of a sale deed is admissible including its content. As such the contents of the deeds are not required to be proven by examining vendors and vendees, as decided in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270, While the State had filed certain sale deeds through a Firisti, the same had neither been proved by any witness nor had they been marked as exhibits. As such, the reference court had correctly declined to place reliance upon them. f) No deduction for the largeness of acquisition was warranted given the nature of the project and the developed area, is now binding precedents as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262, paras 29–32; Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1992 SC 2298, para 13; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568, para 17. Consistent with said binding precedents, the reference court had rightly refrained from deducting any amount on the ground of largeness of acquisition, as the land had been acquired for the Nowai Basin Drainage Scheme and there had been no requirement for developmental work such as roads or drainage. g) The Cross-Objection and the application for additional evidence were maintainable under the relevant legal provisions and 11 precedents, as the COT application bearing the trappings of applications as held in AIR 2023 SC 3110. 14. Having carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides, the evidence on record, and the relevant legal principles, the following questions / issues arise for our consideration: i. What would be the relevant date for determining the market value of the acquired land? ii. Whether the Trial Court's reliance on the exhibited sale deeds for valuation was legally sound? iii. Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is valid in light of the limitation period prescribed under the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997? iv. Whether the Trial Court correctly granted solatium, additional compensation, rental compensation, and interest? v. Whether the Cross-Objection filed by the respondent- claimant is maintainable? Relevant Date for Market Value Determination/Calculation 15. The cornerstone of land acquisition compensation is the determination of market value of the lands. The primary principle governing the determination of market value is enshrined in Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that the market value should be ascertained as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), which corresponds to the 1997 notification in this case. 12 16. In the present case, the acquisition proceedings, under which the award was ultimately passed, commenced with the fresh notification dated 11th March 1997, while initial possession was taken much earlier in 1977. 17. The Trial Court, in enhancing the compensation, appears to have considered the market value prevailing closer to the date of the award, aiming for a just compensation. However, the legally relevant date for primary valuation remains the date of the notification. 18. However, we cannot ignore the significant time lag between the initial taking of possession and the final award. The Supreme Court, in cases of such protracted delays, has recognized the need to ensure just and fair compensation, acknowledging the erosion of monetary value over time. While the 1997 notification date remains the legally relevant point for valuation, the subsequent enhancement by the learned Land Acquisition Judge likely reflects an attempt to provide a more realistic compensation in light of the prevailing market conditions at a later stage. Admissibility and Relevance of Sale Deeds 19. The comparable sales method is the accepted mode of determining market value. The respondent presented eight sale deeds for sali land, which the learned Judge found to be credible as the respondent's witness's testimony remained unchallenged by the State. The State, while questioning the procedural aspects of adducing these documents and their relevance due to the small size of the plots, failed to present 13 any convincing evidence to discredit their genuineness or to offer superior comparable instances for sali land. 20. Regarding the danga land, the learned Judge appropriately considered the sale deeds provided by the State, as the respondent offered no comparative instances for this classification. 21. The argument by the appellant regarding the need for depreciation due to the large size of the acquired land was rightly rejected by the learned Judge. The developed nature of the area and the specific purpose of acquisition (a drainage scheme, not requiring extensive internal development) negated the necessity for such deductions, aligning with established legal precedents. 22. The comparable sales method is a well-recognized and accepted principle for determining market value as held in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 313. The onus lies on the claimant to adduce reliable sale instances of comparable land situated in the vicinity and executed around the time of the notification. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, placed reliance on the sale deeds exhibited by the Respondent-Claimant for sali land and the unexhibited deeds (considered for want of better evidence from the respondent-claimant) for danga land. The Appellant-State's challenge to the proof of these documents, particularly the certified copies, is not sustainable in light of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya, (2004) 8 SCC 270, which held that certified copies are admissible as evidence of the contents of the original documents. The rejection of depreciation for the large size of the 14 land is also in line with the principles laid down in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1992 SC 2298, where it was held that deductions for large tracts are not automatic and depend on the nature of the land and the purpose of acquisition. 23. Therefore, we find no compelling reason to overturn the learned Land Acquisition Judge's reliance on the presented sale deeds for assessing the market value of the different classifications of land. The Judge undertook a factual assessment of the evidence, and the appellant has not demonstrated any perversity in this evaluation. Validity of the Award (Limitation) 24. This is the crux of the Cross-Objection. The admitted date of issuance of the Section 9(3B) notice is 12th November 1999, and the award was declared on 12th December 2001. The West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, introduced a specific timeline for the declaration of the award, which, as per the facts presented, appears to have been exceeded. An award made beyond the statutory limitation period is void and without jurisdiction. The plea of approbate and reprobate cannot validate an inherently invalid award. The additional evidence [Section 9(3B) notice] brought on record through the allowed application supports the Respondent-Claimant's contention on limitation. 25. The respondent-claimant's Cross-Objection raises a crucial issue of the award's validity based on the delay in its pronouncement beyond the statutory limitation period following the Section 9(3B) notice. The admitted date of the Section 9(3B) notice is 12th November 1999, and 15 the award was declared on 12th December 2001. This timeline clearly exceeds the two-year limitation period stipulated by the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997. 26. The West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, which inserted Section 11A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to West Bengal, prescribed a period of two years from the date of service of notice under Section 9(3B) for the making of the award. 27. The law is clear on this point that an award made beyond the prescribed limitation period is considered to be without jurisdiction and legally invalid. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held consistently that an award made beyond the statutory limitation period is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 29. The additional evidence, the Section 9(3B) notice as adduced by cross- objector, clearly establishes that the award was made beyond the stipulated two-year period. The Appellant-State's argument based on the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is untenable as it cannot validate an award that is fundamentally void due to a statutory bar. 30. The appellant's argument based on the doctrine of approbate and reprobate cannot cure a fundamental defect in the award's legality. The acceptance of compensation and participation in the reference proceedings do not validate an award that was passed in violation of the statutory time limit. 16 31. We must clarify here that we have taken on record the Section 9(3B) notice as additional evidence since the same, being a part of the records produced as per our direction by the State itself, is a public document and, as such, admissible in evidence without necessitating the further rigmarole of unnecessarily remanding the matter merely for formal proof of the same. Moreover, the production of such additional evidence is covered by Clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure since, being the appellate court, we require the said document for proper and complete adjudication of the lis. Maintainability of the Cross-Objection 32. Since the provisions of a regular first appeal are applicable to the present appeal against an award enhancing compensation, we, as the appellate court, have ample power under Sections 96 and 107, read with Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to examine the validity and legality of the genesis of the impugned award, which is the original award granting compensation. 33. Based on the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the Cross-Objection filed by the Respondent-Claimant challenging the validity of the award on the ground of limitation is well-founded and must be allowed. The award dated 12th December 2001, having been passed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court enhancing the compensation based on such invalid award cannot be upheld. 17 34. However, keeping in view the fact that the land was acquired for a public purpose and has been utilized for the Nowai Basin Drainage Scheme since 1977, and to ensure that the Respondent-Claimant receives just and fair compensation as mandated by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to direct the initiation of fresh proceedings for the determination of compensation. Logical Conclusion 35. Based on the analysis above, we arrive at the following conclusions: a. While the market value should ideally be assessed as on the date of the 1997 notification, the learned Land Acquisition Judge's enhancement likely aimed at providing fairer compensation considering the long passage of time. b. The learned Land Acquisition Judge's reliance on the sale deeds presented by both parties for determining the market value of sali and danga land appears to be based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence on record. c. The respondent's cross-objection regarding the validity of the award due to the delay beyond the statutory limitation period is substantiated by the evidence presented. The award, having been passed more than two years after the issuance of the Section 9(3B) notice, is legally untenable. Decision 36. In the light of the above analysis, we find that the Cross-Objection raised by the Respondent-Claimant regarding the bar of limitation on 18 the award is well-founded and must be upheld. The award dated 12th December 2001, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24- Parganas, is declared invalid as it was made beyond the statutory period prescribed under the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997. 37. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which enhanced the compensation based on such invalid award, cannot be sustained. 38. However, recognizing that the land was acquired for a public purpose in 1977 and has been utilized accordingly, and to ensure that the Respondent-Claimant receives just compensation as mandated by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to direct fresh proceedings for the determination of compensation. 39. Therefore, while we find no significant infirmity in the learned Land Acquisition Judge's assessment of the market value based on the evidence presented, the fundamental issue of the award's validity due to the bar of limitation raised in the cross-objection must prevail. ORDER i. The Appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal (F.A. 84 of 2019) is dismissed on merit. The enhanced compensation awarded by the Trial Court, is found to be invalid. ii. The Cross-Objection (C.O.T. No. 46 of 2021) filed by the Respondent-Claimant, Rubber Products and Moulding Company, is allowed. 19 iii. The award dated 12th December 2001, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, is hereby set aside as being barred by limitation. iv. The Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, is directed to initiate fresh proceedings for the determination of compensation for the acquired land belonging to the Respondent-Claimant, in accordance with the provisions of the existing statute governing the issue, taking into account the market value of the land as on the date of the Section 4(1) notification (11th March 1997) and other legally permissible factors, including solatium, additional compensation, rental compensation, and interest as applicable under the law. v. The compensation already paid to the respondent-claimant need not be refunded but shall be duly adjusted in the fresh determination. vi. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal and cross- objection. 40. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. I Agree (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J) (Uday Kumar, J) 20 Later: After the pronouncement of judgment, Learned Advocate for the appellant/cross-objector submits that State has deposited 50 per cent of the awarded amount lying with Learned Registrar General of this Court. Let the said amount be refunded to the State with interest subject to deduction of statutory charges as and when so approached. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J) (Uday Kumar, J)