D/L.29. September 14, 2026. KAUSHIK F.A. 7 of 2020 L. A. Collector, Hooghly Vs. Sujit Kumar Manna Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy Ms. Debangana Dey … for the appellant. Mr. Debayan Bera Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya … for the respondent 1. This is an appeal against a judgment dated 27 March, 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in L.A. (Misc) Case No. 59 of 2010 in a proceeding arising out of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Briefly, the respondent no. 1 is a co-owner of the premises acquired by the appellant, L.A. Collector, Hooghly. The acquisition proceeding pertains to approximately 24 decimals in Mouza Tarakeswar appertaining to Plot no. 93 which was acquired for a project of a larger capacity automatic telephone exchange at Tarakeswar. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the entire plot of 73 decimals belonged to the respondent no. 1 and his two brothers, who had acquired their respective shares by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift dated 3 May, 1972. 4. In such circumstances, the respondent no. 1 had a 1/3rd share in the subject premises which has been acquired by the appellant. The amount awarded to the appellant was Rs.2,23,487/-. 5. It is contended on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that the appellant should have paid an amount of Rs.12,41,302/- 2 as additional compensation and solatium to the extent of Rs.19,353/-. The respondent no. 1 had accepted the awarded amount of Rs.2,51,495/- (upon protest) and then filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894) and submitted a reference petition. 6. By the impugned judgment, the Learned Judge has disposed of the application by awarding an amount of Rs.4,34,664/- at the prevailing market rate of Rs.18,111/- per decimal. The Learned Judge has further awarded solatium at 13 % over the entire amount and has also been awarded additional compensation at 12 per cent per annum over the entire amount for 20 years. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on the ground that there are no reasons in the order. In passing the impugned judgment, the Learned Judge has only arrived at a conclusion as to what amount of compensation is to be paid without taking into consideration any of the attending factors. 8. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no consideration of any of the evidence which was adduced by the parties and what weighed with the Learned Judge is passing the impugned judgment. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the solatium on the entire amount is ex facie perverse and in contravention of the express language of section 23 of the Act of 1894. Similarly, the grant of interest @ 12 per cent 3 per annum for the entire amount of 20 years has no legal or factual basis whatsoever. In support of such contention, the appellant relies on Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014)3 SCC 92. 9. On behalf of the respondent authorities, it is submitted that there was sufficient evidence before the Learned Judge to arrive at the grant of compensation. The parties had adduced evidence. The Exhibit 3 series which contained the deeds has been furnished by the respondent no. 1. In this background, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that the interest granted has been erroneously awarded at 18 per cent and should have been 15 per cent. 10. It is now well settled that judicial orders of such nature must be reasoned. Reasons form the basis of any judicial order and disclose as to how the judicial mind has been applied. In Rajeev Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr, Criminal Appeal No. 4109 of 2026 it has been held as follows: “The cardinal principle of the justice delivery system was reiterated that every judicial verdict, which determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings, must disclose not only the outcome, but also the reasons therefor, i.e., why one party has succeeded and the other has not. The insistence on reasons for the decision is for the simple reason that it ensures application of mind by the adjudicator to the material on record and also enables the unsuccessful party to test the same before the higher forum. Lack of reasons, indicative of non- application of mind, handicaps the higher court from discerning the basis upon which the conclusion was arrived at and testing its legality and/or correctness. 11. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it would appear that there are no reasons at all in the impugned judgment. 4 12. In Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 168 it has been held as follows: 7. When the Collector makes the reference to the court, he is enjoined by Section 19 to state the grounds on which he had determined the amount of compensation if the objection raised as to the acceptance of award of the Collector under Section 11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of compensation awarded for the land thereunder. The Collector has to state the grounds on which he had determined the amount of compensation where the objection raised by the claimant in his application for reference under Section 18 was as to inadequacy of compensation allowed by the award under Section 11, as required by sub-section (2) of Section 18 itself. Therefore, the legislative scheme contained in Sections 12, 18 and 19 while on the one hand entitles the claimant not to accept the award made under Section 11 as to the amount of compensation determined as payable for his acquired land and seek a reference to the court for determination of the amount of compensation payable for his land, on the other hand requires him to make good before the court the objection raised by him as regards the inadequacy of the amount of compensation allowed for his land under the award made under Section 11, with a view to enable the court to determine the amount of compensation exceeding the amount of compensation allowed by the award under Section 11, be it by reference to the improbabilities inherent in the award itself or on the evidence aliunde adduced by him to that effect. That is why, the position of a claimant in a reference before the court, is considered to be that of the plaintiff in a suit requiring him to discharge the initial burden of proving that the amount of compensation determined in the award under Section 11 was inadequate, the same having not been determined on the basis of relevant material and by application of correct principles of valuation, either with reference to the contents of the award itself or with reference to other evidence aliunde adduced before the court. Therefore, if the initial burden of proving that the amount of compensation allowed in the award of the Collector was inadequate, is not discharged, the award of the Collector which is made final and conclusive evidence under Section 12 as regards matters contained therein will stand unaffected. But if the claimant succeeds in proving that the amount determined under the award of the Collector was inadequate the burden of proving the correctness of the award shifts on to the Collector who has to adduce sufficient evidence in that behalf to sustain such award. Hence, the court which is required to decide the reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act cannot determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimant for his land exceeding the amount determined in the award of the Collector made under Section 11 for the same land, unless it gets over the finality and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it under Section 12, by recording a finding on consideration of relevant material therein that the amount of compensation determined under the award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed with it. 13. Similarly, In ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others (2005) 6 SCC 454 it has been held as follows: 5 “14. The Reference Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in passing the judgment solely relying on or on the basis of the testimony of a witness ignoring the deeds of sale which were produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. If the Reference Court intended to differ with the opinion of the Land Acquisition Collector, it was bound to assign sufficient and cogent reasons therefor. From a bare perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Judge, it is evident that he had relied upon the purported award made in LARs Cases Nos. 1349 and 1314 of 1992. It is true that before the Reference Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement that the said judgments have attained finality and no appeal had been preferred there against and as such the same could be taken as good guidance for the purpose of determining the actual value of the acquired lands; but as has been noticed hereinbefore, the said statement had wrongly been made as appeals had been preferred there against. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, did not pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on fact and, thus, misdirected itself in law. In determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Court as also the High Court was bound to take into consideration the well- settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in Section 23 of the Act.” 14. For convenience section 23 of the Act is set out below: 23. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, did not pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on fact and, thus, misdirected itself in law. In determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Court as also the High Court was bound to take into consideration the well- settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in Section 23 of the Act.” 14. For convenience section 23 of the Act is set out below: 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation (1)In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first , the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)] [Substituted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 7, for " declaration relating thereto under section 6" .];secondly , the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof; thirdly , the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly , the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly , if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly , the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land.[(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] 6 (2)In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15, for " fifteen per centum" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] on such market value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition. 15. In such circumstances it was the duty of the Court while determining the aspect of compensation to necessarily examine all the relevant facts and circumstances. 16. There has been no examination of any of the relevant factors in the impugned order. Reasonable market value of the subject premises has not even been considered. There has been no reference to any of the facts and circumstances which guided the Learned Judge in determining the compensation. The price of the adjacent land has neither been discussed nor adverted to. Similarly, it potentiality and features has not even been taken into consideration. In short, the impugned judgment has no element of ‘why’ for the ‘what’ to stand on. (Uniworth Resorts Limited vs. Ashok Mittal & Ors. 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 532). 17. The finding in the impugned judgment to pay solatium at 13 per cent over the entire amount is unsustainable and in contravention to the express language of section 23 of the Act. Similarly, the additional compensation which has been granted of 20 years has no basis at all. On an examination of the facts and circumstances, it would appear that 12 per cent per annum calculation could not have been granted on the basis of 20 years. The total number of years from the date of notification to the date of award was approximately 14.41 years and from the date of possession to the date of award was approximately 15 7 years. In such circumstances, there is no rationale whatsoever in arriving at the finding of 20 years on the basis of which, additional compensation has been directed to be paid. 18. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is set aside. F.A. 7 of 2020 stands allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly to hear the parties afresh after adducing of evidence. It is made clear that there has been no expression on the merits of the case and all issues are left open for the District Judge to decide strictly in accordance with law. 19. The amount of security lying with the Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court in terms of the order dated 9 March, 2021 passed in CAN 2 of 2018 will continue to be held subject to the final outcome of the reference. 20. The above exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. The Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court is directed to communicate the passing of this order forthwith to the Office of the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly for necessary records. The Lower Court records be forthwith transmitted to the concerned Court. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Atarup Banerjee, J.)