D.K.Seth, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th April, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Howrah in L.A. Case No. 57 of 1986. Submission on behalf of the Appellants
(2.)The claimants/appellants had preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment on various grounds. Mr. S.P. Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the assessment made by the learned Judge is arbitrary and has been made without considering the expected value of the land as on the date of notification. It has overlooked the potential value of the land. None of the considerations relevant for assessment of valuation of the land has been considered. The situation, size, shape was not taken into account. It has also committed gross error in the valuation of the building, which on record appears to have been constructed 10/15 years before acquisition. The rejection of the valuation report by the valuer, PW 2 was unjustified. He had also contended that the principle of valuation has not been followed, particularly, it has not taken into consideration the price of the similarly situated land which was conveyed within the reasonable proximity of the time of acquisition. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swarup & Ors., 1971(3) SCC 857 (para 5 and 6); M/s. The All India Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. v. The Collector of Darrang & Anr., 1971(3) SCC 820; Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1652. Submission of behalf of the Respondent
(3.)Mr. Himangshu Kumar Basu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the learned Judge has overlooked the principle of belting method, which was correctly adopted by the Collector. The valuation is required to be based on the date of the Notification under section 4(1a) of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). But the learned Judge has completely ignored the same. He had also pointed out from the materials on record that one of the buildings was constructed 25 years before the issue of the Notification and the last of the buildings was constructed 15 years before the issue of the Notification. The valuation has been made in excess both in respect of the land as well as the building. He had pointed out that the report of the Valuer, PW 2 was rightly rejected because it lacked in material particulars. The valuation made by the department is perfectly in order and the Court should have followed the same. He also contended that the valuation has to be made having regard to the various methods and manners as has been prescribed in law. He referred to Parks on Valuation, 1998 Edition, Page 334 Chapter XIII relating to building and estate in support of his contention. He referred to the decision in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2532 (para 11) and Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr., 2001(7) SCC 650 (para 3). According to him, the burden lay on the claimants to prove the valuation as it being claimed. But they having been unable to establish the same, they cannot claim any benefit therefor. In support he relied on Parameshwari Devi v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., AIR 1994 SC 1142 (para 3). According to him, this matter requires to be remitted to the learned trial Court for deciding the question appropriately under Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Reply by Appellants