Division Bench Remands Land Acquisition Appeal for Recalculation in Light of Co‑ordinate Bench Ruling; Directs Interim Payment of 50%

A Division Bench of Justices Chitta Ranjan Dash and Partha Sarathi Sen heard an appeal by land‑loser Smt. Gita Rani Nandy challenging the award and quantification of compensation in a land acquisition matter against the Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeeling. The primary question before the Court was whether the co‑ordinate Bench judgment in FA 203 of 2013 and connected appeals dated 22.11.2017 governed the present appeal and required revisiting the compensation components — including multiplier, deduction for cultivation cost, loss of earnings and solatium.

The Bench held that the co‑ordinate Bench decision “squarely covers the field” and remanded the matter to the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling to reconsider the award in the light of the earlier decision. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to re‑examine and re‑compute compensation issues identified by the parties. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Regard being had to such facts and submissions and our satisfaction to the effect that judgment passed in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals squarely covers the field so far as the present appeal is concerned, we remand the matter to the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling to revisit the matter in the appeal in the light of the judgment passed by the co‑ordinate Bench of this Court in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals on 22.11.2017 (Supra).” The Bench also directed that the remand exercise be completed within six months, cautioned the parties against unnecessary adjournments, and instructed the trial court to be guided by the exercise made in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1997 after the remand by the co‑ordinate Bench in FA 203 of 2013.

Background The dispute concerned compensation for land acquired; possession of the land was recorded as 22.10.1984 and the Section 4(1A) notice under the West Bengal Act II of 1948 was published on 02.06.1987. The appellant contended that the factual matrix and valuation issues were covered by the co‑ordinate Bench’s decision in FA 203 of 2013 and other appeals decided on 22.11.2017, and sought recalculation of multiplier (challenging an 8 to 10 multiplier), reduction of the 50% deduction on cultivation cost to 20%, and revisiting quantum of loss of earning and solatium in light of market value principles laid down by the earlier judgment. The State’s counsel accepted that the co‑ordinate Bench decision applied and noted that the State had not appealed against the Additional District Judge’s order passed after the earlier remand.

Relying on the co‑ordinate Bench precedent, the Division Bench directed a remand for fresh consideration of compensation components and methodologies. The Court gave interim relief by directing the Additional District Judge to “do the needful for directing the payment of at least 50% of the original awarded amount along with interest during the pendency of the matter on remand on filing of proper application to that effect.” The Bench ordered immediate transmission of records to the trial court through a special messenger at the cost of the land‑loser and disposed of the appeal after setting aside the impugned order.

Case No.: FA 186 of 2004 Case Title: Smt. Gita Rani Nandy Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeling Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Debashis Kundu, Senior Advocate; Mr. R. N. Barik For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ram Chandra Guchhait