In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandip Kumar De FA 124 of 2024 IA No: CAN 4 of 2025 The State of West Bengal -Versus- Sri Subhas Chandra Khamrai For the State : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, ...Advs. For the respondent : Mr. Sayantan Bose, Mr. Jishnu Datta, Ms. Priyanka Gope, Ms. Dakshayani Basu, ...Advs. Heard on : 10.08.2026, 02.09.2026, 17.09.2026 Reserved on 17.09.2026 Last Heard on : 22.09.2026 Sandip Kumar De, J.:- 1. The present First Appeal arises out of the judgement and decree dated February 26,2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th 2 Court, Paschim Medinipur, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the L.A. Misc.No.09 of 2009 (CIS No.22/2014) in connection with L.A. Case No.03/2005-06 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the 1894 Act’ for short). By the judgement and decree impugned, the learned trial court decreed that the petitioner is entitled to get market value of the subject land @Rs.55069/- per decimal from November 3,2004 to July 3,2007, Solatium @30% of Rs.55069/- per decimal, meaning thereby Rs.16521/- per decimal in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, requisition compensation/damages/rent, that wil be 12% per annum of Rs.201/- per decimal on and from December 5,1979 to November 2,2004, simple interest on the excess market value of the land plus excess additional compensation plus excess solatium from the date of last publication of notification under section 4 of the 1894 Act, i.e., from November 3,2004 @9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till realisation and simple interest @8% per annum on the enhanced requisition compensation from November 5,1979 to November 2,2004. The learned Trial Court further decreed, inter alia, that the payment of such amount to be made to the claimant-respondent herein within a period of 90 days from the order passed by the learned trial court. 2. Accordingly, L.A Misc. Case No.09 of 2009 was allowed in part on contest against the opposite party and the reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Midnapur vide memo no.981/L.A. dated November 06, 2009, LA case No.03/2005-06 to the learned District Judge was replied accordingly. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal was filed before this Court. 4. The respondent in the present appeal, being the claimant-petitioner before the learned trial court filed an application for execution before the learned 3 trial court, being Money Execution Case No.12/2021. The State of West Bengal, represented by the Land Acquisition Collector, Paschim Medinipur, being the appellant in the present appeal, filed an application for stay, being CAN 2 of 2022. By order dated April 03, 2024 a Division Bench of this Court directed stay of further proceedings in the aforesaid execution case subject to the deposit of the entire amount as per the judgment impugned before the Registrar General of this Court on or before June 30,2024,amongst other orders. Subsequently, by order dated December 10,2024 another Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) extended the time for deposit of the decretal amount in terms of the order dated April 03,2024 till January 3,2025. Thereafter, the decretal amount was deposited with the Registrar General of this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the time of hearing of the present appeal, placed a Co-ordinate Division Bench judgement passed in the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. Akshay Kumar Khamrai reported at (2022) SCC Online Cal 4141 and submitted that an acquisition proceeding of an adjacent land out of the self-same acquisition proceeding was dismissed by the said judgement and order, thereby affirming the judgement of enhancement passed by the reference court. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State, upon taking instructions in this regard, submitted that the case related to the cited decision arises out of the same acquisition proceeding and it also appears from the record that the same acquisition proceeding related to the same cluster of land as the present matter. As such, the decision of the Co- ordinate Division Bench passed in the case of Akshay Kumar Khamrai (supra) is binding on this Court. 4 7. It appears from the judgement and order in the case of Akshay Kumar Khamrai (supra), that the Co-ordinate Division Bench relied on the judgements delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L Jain vs. DDA reported in (2004) 4 SCC 7, Balwan Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector reported in (2016) 13 SCC 412 and Madi Shetti Bala Ramul (dead) vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2007) 9 SCC 650 and held there there is no irregularity on the part of the learned trial judge in determining the market value of the land in question. The said Division Bench further held that the payment of interest for the period from the date of dispossession and the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act is no longer res integra. The Co-ordinate Division Bench judgement further noticed and held that following Madi Shetti Bala Ramul (supra) in all such cases, additional interest @15% p.a. on the amount awarded by the Collector had been directed to be paid between the date of dispossession and the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. There has thus been a consistent view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the claimant can be compensated @15%p.a. from the date of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act on the basis of the market value so ascertained. 8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench, accordingly, held that applying such proposition of law to the facts of the case, which are similar to the present one, it would be appropriate to direct the Collector to make payment of compensation by awarding an additional interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% as is directed for the market value of the land on and from the date of possession of the land was taken over till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree were modified and the other directions contained in the said judgment and decree were kept unaltered. The Co-ordinate 5 Division Bench directed the appellant/State to make payment of the balance amount along with interest to the respondent-claimant in terms of the judgment of the decree of the learned trial court as modified in the said judgment and further directed that the Registrar General shall release the sum lying with him/her to the credit of the aforesaid appeal be immediately released in favour of the appellant along with the accrued interest thereon after deducting the commission payable, if any. The respondent was held to be entitled to recover the aforesaid commission amount from the appellant. As we have already held that the Co-ordinate Division Bench judgement delivered in the case of Akshay Kumar Khamrai (supra) is binding on this Court, we respectfully agree and follow the ratio and decision laid down in Akshay Kumar Khamrai (supra). As such, we do not find any scope to interfere with the determination of market value of the land in question in the present appeal. We, accordingly, dispose of the present appeal with the direction(s) as follows: (i) The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to receive payment of compensation and additional interest @ 15% p.a. on the market value of the land at Rs.55069/- per decimal on and from the date of possession of the land was taken over, i.e., from November 5,1979 till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act,i.e., up to November 2,2004. The impugned judgement and decree are accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. The other directions contained in the said judgment and decree impugned herein shall remain unaltered; (ii) The appellant is directed to make payment of the balance amount with interest to the respondent-claimant in terms of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court below as modified 6 above, within a period of three months from the date of judgment and decree passed by this Court; (iii) The Registrar General shall release the payment of the sum lying with him/her to the credit of the present appeal in favour of the respondent-claimant, along with the accrued interest thereon, after deducting the commission payable, if any, within a period of fortnight from the date of judgment and decree passed in the present appeal by this Court after deducting the commission payable, if any; and (iv) The delay in payment of the sum mentioned in Sl.No.(i) above by the appellant to the respondent-claimant would attract an additional /penal interest of 10% p.a. for the period of delay caused in making such payment till date of realisation. 9. FA 124 of 2024 stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Consequentially, CAN 4 of 2025 stands disposed of. 10. The department is directed to draw up the decree accordingly. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order/judgment if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. I Agree (SANDIP KUMAR DE, J) (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)