KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusGOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR

                [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 373


KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                          A
                               v
           GOBINDA CHANDRA MAKAL & ANR
             (Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2007)

                    SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
                                                                    B
  [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

      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
                                                                       F
places in the locality on 16. 11. 2000 - Whether the relevant
date for determination of compensation is 13. 9. 2000 or
 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.
                                                             B
      The Reference Court also attempted an alternative
 method of determining the market value with reference
 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
 not have ingress and egress, 25% was added to that 0
 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
    were twice that of the value of beel lands;
0
       (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
  the value of plot no. 272 was liable to be set aside;
F
       (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:
                                                                  c
Re : Contention (i) ·:

     1. It is possible that Beel lands when developed into
residential plots, by draining, filling and levelling the land,
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
as Beel plots. There is no dispute that at the relevant           E
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         F
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)                                              G
     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.    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] [400-
B-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
  represents what may be called the 'retail' price of land,
0
  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.
                                                                E
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
                                                            F
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
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.                  ·
                                                                   B
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
                       of
reference to the sale sali plot no.192, the compensation
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] [409-           E
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
    390     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         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
B
          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
c                                    referred to    Para 18
          2008 (10 ) SCR 367

          2009 (13 ) SCR 622         referred to    Para 18

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D 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   A
  No.        Chitaks                 in Acres     of land
             (1 acre=60 cottahs)
             (1 cottah=16 Chitaks)
  62         117 Cottah              1.94 acres   Sali
                                                  (Agricultural)   B
  42         37 Cottahs              0.61 acres   Sali
                                                  (Agricultural)
  272        13 Cottahs 5 Chitaks    0.22 acres   Beel (Marsh)

     . 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
  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 sub- F
  sections (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. The valuer gave a valuation
report dated 20.6.2002 assessing the value of plot No.62 at        E
143,000 per cottah, plot No.42 at Rs. 135,000 per cottah and
plot No.272 at Rs. 108,000 per cottah. The abstract of the
method of calculation adopted by the valuer is as under :
Description                Plot No.62   Plot No.42   Plot No.272
Base rate (Re : Plot No.   Rs.100,000 Rs.100,000 Rs.100,000        F
192 under deed dated       per cottah per cottah per cottah
10.3.2000)
Add for appreciation in    +8%          +8%          +8%
market value during a
period of 8 months                                                 G
(between 10.3.2000 and
16.11.2000) at the rate
of 12% per annum
Add for advantage of       +20%         +.10%        +20%
frontage towards a road             .                              H
    394    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   (as against common
    passage frontage of plot
    no.192)
    Add for FAR advantage +25%              +20%         +30%
    on account of frontage to
B   a road.
    Add for advantage of       +5%          +7%          -
    facing East
    Deduction on account of -15%            -10%         -50%
    development cost (small
c   size to big size)
    Net addition to be made    +43%         +35%      +8%
                               (58%-15%)    (45%-35%) (58%-50%)
              Value of plots   Rs.143,000 Rs.135,000 Rs.108,000
                               per cottah per cottah per cottah
D
         6. The Reference Court on considering the evidence was
    of the view that the valuation by the expert valuer should be
    accepted subject to one modification. The Reference Court
    found that the valuer had deducted only 15% and 10% from the
E   price of a small developed plot, to determine the market value
    of plot no.62 and plot no.42. He accepted the submission of
    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),
F   the deduction should be one-third (that is 33.33%). By making
    such deduction (instead of 15% for plot no.62 and 10% for plot
    no.42 applied by the valuer) the Reference Court arrived at the
    market value 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
G   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.

         7. The Reference Court also attempted an alternative
    method of determining the market value with reference to the
    four sale-deeds in regard to beel Plots Nos.417 and 445 and
H   held that the valuation of acquired lands with reference to the
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 395
   CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
said sales statistics would be approximately Rs.134,000 per          A
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 ~xemplar plot (No.192) did
not have ingress and egress, 25% was added to that value to          B
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 value of sali plots were double      c.
that of beel plots, he doubled the said figure and arrived at the
market value of sali plots as Rs. 1,34,000/-.

     8. In view of the above, he choose to determine the market
value of Safi land (plot nos. 62 and 42) as Hs. 120,000 per
cottah. As the value of beel land was 50% of the value of Sali       D
land, he determined the market value of beet land (plot no.272)
as Rs. 60,000/-. The Reference Court therefore made an award
dated 11.10.2004 awarding 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 benefits. Feeling aggrieved,       E
KMDC as well as State of West Bengal have filed appeals. The
Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeals by judgment dated
18.5.2007 thereby affirming the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court.
                                                                     F
     9. KMDC and the State of West Bengal have challenged
the said decision of the High Court in these appeals by special
leave, raising the following four contentions: ·

    (i) The first respondent had himself relied upon the four sale
    deeds relating to beel lands that is sale deeds dated            G
    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
    and Rs. 80,000 per cottah. Though the plots were
    described as beel lands in the sale deeds, qualitatively         H .
    396     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         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 the
          market value of the acquired lands ought to have been
          determined with reference to the price disclosed by the
B         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 were
          twice that of the value of beel lands.

          (ii) Even if the sale deed dated 10.3.2000 relating to sali
c         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 during
          eight months, or on account of frontage advantage or on
          account of plots facing east, was not warranted. Therefore
D         the additions of 58% to the value of plot no.62, 45% to the
          value of plot no.42 and 58% to the value of plot no. 272
          was liable to be set aside.        ·

          (iii) Having regard to the fact that the acquired lands were
E         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 deduction
          towards development and development cost ought to have
          been at least 50% instead of 33.33%.
F      (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 the first
      respondent and the first respondent had accepted the
      same. Therefore what should be paid to the first
G     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
H     the compensation.
 KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 397
    CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Re : Contention (i) :                                                 A

      10. The appellants submitted that the first respondent had
 produced and relied upon four sale deeds relating to Beel
 lands, and they ought to have been the basis for determination
 of compensation for the acquired lands. These sale deeds             B
 disclosed that three portions of Plot No.417 measuring 5
 cottah, 5 cottah and 3 cottah 1 chitak were sold under sale
deeds dated 8.1.1999, 8.1.1999 anti 29.3.2000. The price per
 cottah under the first two sale deeds is Rs. 70,000/- per cottah
 and under the third sale deed is about Rs. 65,400/- per cottah.      C
 The fourth sale deed dated 25.6.1999 relates to sale of 3 cottah
 and 5 sq.ft. in plot No.445 which discloses the price paid as
 Rs. 80,000 per cottah. The average of the four sales would be
 about Rs. 71,350 per cottah. According to the appellant though
 these plots were described as Beel lands because they were
originally classified as 'Beel', they were no longer Beel, but        D
were developed and sold as residential plots, and situated in
the limits of Ward No.108 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Therefore, they were no different from the plots laid down in Sali
lands. Consequently, it was submitted that the value of these
residential plots should be treated on par with the plots laid in     E
Sali lands and their value could not be considered as half of
the value of Sali lands. The appellants contend that though the
Reference Court considered these sale deeds, it erroneously
doubled the value disclosed by these plots to arrive at the value
of Sali plots merely because they were described as Beel lands.       F
According to the appellant, once the Beel lands are developed
into residential plots by drawing, filling and levelling, the value
of Sali plots and Beel plots are the saine. Therefore, it is
contended that on the basis of these sale deeds, the prevailing
value of residential plots in the area ought to have been taken       G
as Rs. 71,350 per cottah ~nd by deducting one-third (33.33%)
therefrom towards development, the value of the acquired lands
irrespective of whether they are Sali or Beel, should be fixed
as Rs. 47,570 per cottah.
                                                                      H
    398    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       11. We have carefully considered the said contention. It is
  possible that Beel lands when developed into residential plots,
  by draining, filling and levelling the land, will cease to be Beel
  in nature. But it is also possible that the plots sold under sale
  deeds dated 8.1.1999, 25.6.1999 and 29.3.2000 were really
B 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 as Beel plots. There is no dispute that at the relevant point
  of time the Sali plots were considered to be more valuable than
c Beel plots. Therefore we reject 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.
0
    Re : Contention (ii)

      12. The Reference Court and the High Court have not
  disapproved or rejected the various additions made by the
E Expert Valuer for 'advantages' possessed by plot nos.62, 42
  and 272. We will consider each of these 'advantages'
  separately.

        13. The valuer has added 8% towards appreciation in
F 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. Only about six
  months had passed from the date of the exemplar sale deed
  (10.3.2000), when the preliminary notification regarding the
G acquisition was issued in the same year namely 2000. (The
  difference would be eight months even if the date of publication
  of preliminary 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
H
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 399
   CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

value. This Court in ONGC Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai               A
Patel - (2008) 4 SCC 745 observed :

     "However, for the purpose of calculation, we have to
     exclude the year of the relied-upon transaction, which is
     the base year. If the year of relied-upon transaction is 1987,
                                                                      B
     the increase is applied not from 1987 itself, but only from
     the next year which is 1988."

Therefore, unless the difference is more than one year, normally
no addition should be made towards appreciation in value,
unless there is special evidence to show some specific                C
increase within a short period. Therefore, the addition of 8%
to the price (Rs.100,000/- per cottah) of plot no.192, wa.>
unwarranted.

       14. The Expert valuer has added to the basic value of Rs.      D
 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 feet wide road, on the
ground that these three lands were more advantageously
situated when compared to plot No.192 which faces a narrow            E
eight feet common passage. The valuer has made one more
addition to the basic value on account of frontage advantage
of the acquired plots, 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         F
ratio) when undertaking construction. Addition of percentages
for advantageous frontage, that too twice was 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          G
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 a value of nearby small residential plot, the
                                                                      H
    400    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 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 272, have to be deleted.

        15. Lastly, the Expert Valuer has added 5% for plot No.62
8 for the advantage of being an east facing plot and 7% for plot
  no.42 for the advantage of being an east & 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.
c
         16. Therefore, 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 and 42, should be arrived at by
    making an appropriate cut from the value derived from sale
o   price of plot No.192, namely Rs. 1 lac per cottah. The 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.

    Re : Contention (iii)
E
         17. In Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector,
    Varanasi - (1988) 2 SCC 150, this Court has explained the
   principle for valuing large extent of undeveloped urban land with
   reference to the price fetched by a small developed plot. This
F Court explained that prices fetched for small plots cannot form
   safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land and cannot be
 1 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
G 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 hypothetical layout
   could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small
H
 KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 401
    CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

lai~ out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small     A
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; expenses of development of the sites by'laying'out
roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the            8
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 represents what
may be called the 'retail' price of land, the 'wholesale' price of
land is to be estimated. In. Chimanla/ Hargovinddas vs.                C
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona - (1988) 3 SCC 751,
this Court gave the following illustration to arrive at the value of
large undeveloped land from the value of a small developed
plot:
                                                                 D
    "A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds cannot be
    compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000
    sq.yds or more. Firstly, while a smaller plot is within the.
    re.ach of many, a large block of land will have to be
    developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, E
    leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for
    purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked
    up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be
    discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance
    at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between
    20% to 50% to accounf for land required to be set apart
                                                                 F
    for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The
    discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it
    is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is
    picking up, and whether waiting period during which the
    capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be G
    longer or shorter and the attendant hazards."

     18. By comparing the situational advantage, existing
development and amenities available to the acquired lands and
the exemplar sale transactions relating to small plots, and other      H
    402     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A  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. [See : K.
 · Vasundara Devi vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) -
   (1995) 5 SCC 426; Basavva vs. Special Land Acquisition
B Officer - (1996) 9 SCC 640; Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil
   Corporation Ltd - (2001) 7 SCC 650; Atma Singh Thr. LRs.
   vs. State of Haryana - (2008)·2 SCC 568 and Kanta Devi vs.
   State of Haryana - (2008) 15 SCC 201], and and Lal Chand
   vs. Union of India - (2009) 15 SCC 769]. In Lal Chand, this
c Court gave the following guidelines as to what should be the
   deduction for development:

          "The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be
          made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of
          undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for
D         development), with reference to the sale price of small
          developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price
          of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon
          the nature of development of the lay out in which the
          exemplar plots are situated.
E
          The 'deduction for development' consists of two
          components. The first is with reference to the area required
          to be utilised for developmental works and the second is
          the cost of the development works. For example if a
F         residential. layout is formed by DOA or similar statutory
          authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the
          layout, for roads, drains, parks, play grounds and civic
          amenities (community facilities) etc.

          The Development Authority will also incur considerable
G         expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a
          developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the
          land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and
          sewage facilities, laying waterlines, electricity lines and
          developing parks and civil amenities, which would be
H
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 403
   CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
   about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two          A
   factors taken together would be the 'deduction for
   development' and can account for as much as 75% of the
   cost of the developed plot.

   On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an
                                                                 8
   unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of
   'deduction for development' may be far less. This is
   because in an un-authorized lay outs, usually no land will
   be set apart for parks, play grounds and community
   facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be C
   minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just
   adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on
   development work would also be comparatively less and
   minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors
   in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only
   about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard D
   to ODA plots.                  ·

 - The 'deduction for development' with references to prices
   of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range
   between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and            E
   quality of the layout. ...... .

    If.the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and
  - not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for
    development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25%    F
    to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be
    available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are
    tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary).

  Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be
  made with reference to the price of a small plot in a G
  developed lay out, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land,
  will be for more than the deduction with reference to the
  price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay out or
  an industrial layout. ......... .
                                                                H
  Some of the layouts formed by statutory Development
    404     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         Authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/
          sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical sub-
          stations etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for
          roads, drains, parks, playgr<;>unds and community/civic
          amenittes. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only
B         to show that the 'deduction fpr development' factor is a
          variable percentage and the range of percentage itself
          being very wide from 20% to 75%."

         19. In this case, the evidence shows that plot nos.62 and
  -42 are sali (agricultural) lands, and the plot no.272 is a beel
C (marshy) land. Their extents are 1.94 acres, 0.61 acres and
   0.22 acres respectively. Plot No.62 faces a twenty feet wide
   metalled road. Plot No.42 faces a twenty feet katcha road. Plot
   No.272 faces a 60 feet road. All are situated within the limits
   of Ward No.108 of Kolkata Municipal limits and had potential
D for being developed into residential plots. They were acquired
  for East Calcutta Area Development Project. 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
E ft. from plot No.62, a distance of 1750 ft. plot No.42 and a
  distance of 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
F market value of plot No.192 should be 33.33%. The Reference
  Court after considering the facts found that 33.33% (one-third
  of the value of the 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
G the said percentage of deduction. In the circumstances, we find
  no reason to alter the percentage of deduction of 33.33%.

    Re : Contention (iv)

          20. The market value has to be determined with reference
H
  KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 405
     CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

 to ~he date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) A
 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 in pursuance of notification under section
 4(1 a) of WB Requisition Act, the said acquisition notification       s
 was not followed by an award and the acquisition notification
 was 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.

        Therefore, the relevant date for determination of C
  compensation would be the date of publication of the
   preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the LA Act.
   However 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 D
  annum from the date of payment to date of publication of
  preliminary notification. 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 E
· amount will be calculated on the entire compensation amount,
  statutory interest payable to first respondent will be calculated
  only after adjusting the aforesaid advance payment with interest
  therein towards the compensation amount.
                                                                       F
 Re : Relevant date for determining compensation

        21. The notification under section 4(1) of the 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 substance of such G
  notification to be given at convenient places in the locality on
  16.11.2000. The reference court and the High Court have
  proceeded cm the basis that the relevant date for determining
. the market value is 16.11.2000. They have also relied upon the
  expert valuer's report which assessed the market value as on H
    406    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   16.11.2000. We have noticed above that the Expert Valuer
    determined the market value with reference to a sale deed
    dated 10.3.2000, by adding 8% as the increase in prices for
    the period of eight months between 10.3.2000 and 16.11.2000
    (at the rate of 1% per month). The question is whether the
B   relevant date for determination of compensation is 13.9.2000
    or 16.11.2000.

          22. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides the
    compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the
    Reference Court, based upon the market value of the acquired
C   land at the time of publication of the notification under section
    4 sub-section (1). The first respondent contends that the 'date
    of publication of notification under section 4(1)' is statutorily
    defined in section 4(1) (that is the last of the dates, out of the
    dates of publication of the notification in the official gazette,
D   publication of the notification in two daily newspapers circulating
    in that locality of which at least one shall be in regional
    language, and public notice of the substance of such
    notification being given at convenient places in the locality), and
    therefore the said words refer to 16.11.2000 as the date of
E   publication of notification under section 4(1) of the LA Act.

       23. Section 6 was amended in 1984 providing that no
  declaration under section 6 in respect of any land covered by
  a notification under section 4(1) shall be made after the ~xpiry
F of one year from the date of publication of the notification under
  section 4(1). In that 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
G and giving of such public notice being herein 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
H 6 "4t'e LA Act. Prior to the 1984 amendment of section 4, the
 KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 407
    CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
 words "publication of notification under section 4(1)" in section      A
 23(1) referred to the date of publication of the notification in the
 official Gazette. Even after the amendment of section4(1), the
 said words in section 23(1) continue to have the same earlier
 meaning. We may briefly indicate the reasons for our said
 conclusion.                                                            B
                                                  -
       24. 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 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            C
 '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 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                D
 acquisition, on the date of publication in the gazette or in the
 newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of
 the notification is delayed by two or 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                E-
 development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself.
 If the words 'publication 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              F
 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. Let us give two illustrations :
                                                                        G
      Illustration A : The market value of the acquired land on
      13.9.2000 is Rs.1,00,000 per acre. A notification under
      section 4(1) is published in the gazette on 13.9.2000 and
      in two newspapers on 14.9.2000. But the public notice in
      the locality is given only two months later on 16.11.2000.
    408     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         As the land owners in the area come to know about the
          proposed acquisition and consequential expectations of
          development in the area, developers and speculators enter
          the arena and start buying neighbouring lands leading to
          steep increase in prices. Consequently several sales takes
B         place in October 2000 at rates ranging from Rs.1.5 lakhs
          to Rs.2 lakhs per acre. If 16.11.2000 should be taken as
          the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1 ),
          the land owners can legitimately contend that the sale
          deeds executed in October 20Q,O, being prior to the 'date
c         of publication of the prelimina.ry notification' should be
          taken note of for the purpose of determining the
          compensation. That would result in compensation being
          determined between Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.2 lakhs per acre
          even though the market rate as on 13.9.2000 which is the
          date of publication of the notification was only Rs.1,00,000.
D
          Illustration B : When large tracts of lands are acquired
          and the preliminary notification dated 13.9.2000 is
          published in the Gazette on 13.9.2000 and in the
          newspapers on 14.9.2000, but public notice of the
E         substance is delayed by more than two months and is
          given on 16.11.2000, there will be ample time for
          unscrupulous land owners of acquired lands to create
          evidence of higher market value by managing nominal
          sale/s in regard to some neighbouring land which is not
F         the subject of acquisition at a price of Rs.2,00,000/- as
          against the market price of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby
          cause a huge loss to the state.

       25. The same words used in different parts of a statute
  should normally bear the same meaning. But depending upon
G the context, the same words used in different places of a statue
  may also have different meaning. [See: Justice G.P. Singh's
  Principles of Statutory Interpretation - 12th Edition - Pages
  356-358]. The use of the words 'publication of the notification'
  in sections 4(1) and 6 on the one hand and in section 23(1) on
H
   I




  KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEV. AUTH. v. GOBINDA 409
     CHANDRA MAKAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
. the other, in the LA Act, is a .classic example, where the same A
  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 for determination of market value. The
  words "the last of the date of such publication and giving of such· B
  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" 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 c
  issuing the declaration under section 6, which is counted from
  the date of 'publication of the notification'. Therefore the context
  in which the words are used ih 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 · D
  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.
         .   II


 Conclusion                                                          E'
      26. In regard to plots 62 and 42, by adopting a cut of
 33.33% from the price of Rs.100,000/- disclosed with
 reference to the sale of sali plot no.192, we determine the
 compensation as Rs.66,667/- rounded off to Rs.67,000/- per          F
 cottah.

      27. In regard to plot no.272, we find that beel land has
 been sold for Rs. 70,000/- per cottah on 8.1.1999 and
 Rs.80,000/- per cottah on 25.6.1999. We may therefore, take
 Rs.90,000/- per cottah as the market value of small developed       G
 plots by providing a 12% appreciation per year with reference
 to the sale price on 25.6.1999. By deducting 33.33% therefrom,
 the market value of undeveloped plots in 2000 would be
 Rs.60,000/- per cottah.
                                                                     H
    410    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.


A      28. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in part
  and reduce the compensation to Rs. 67,000/- per cottah for plot
  nos.62 and 42 and maintain the compensation at the rate of
  Rs. 60,000/- per cottah in regard to plot no.272. The first
  respondent will be entitled to the statutory benefits, that is,
B 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 13.9.2000 towards the
  compensation payable. Parties to bear their respective costs.
c B.B.B                                    Appeals partly allowed.