Because It Decided He Was Not A Lessee, It Never Valued The Land
A tea company's land was acquired. The reference court refused to work out the market value at all, on a premise the High Court has now called perverse.
The Court held the reference court committed perversity in refusing to calculate the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on the erroneous premise that the appellant was not a lessee. It further held that the reference court had acted beyond its jurisdiction, given the limited scope of a reference under Section 18.
- Market value is fixed as at the Section 4(1) notification, and that calculation cannot be skipped.
- A wrong finding on status cascaded — deciding the appellant was not a lessee is what led to no valuation at all.
- Section 18 is a narrow reference. The reference court went beyond what that jurisdiction permits.
- Perversity is the standard the appellate court applied, not mere disagreement.
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE
- Citation
- FA No. 77 of 2012
- Case
- FA No. 77 of 2012
- Decided
- August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed on the findings recorded
What went wrong below
The reference court proceeded on the premise that the appellant was not a lessee of the acquired land.
Having taken that view, it declined to calculate the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act at all.
What the High Court held
The Court held that refusal to be perverse: the market value falls to be determined as on the Section 4(1) date, and the erroneous premise about the appellant's status was no reason not to do it.
On a separate footing, the Court held that the reference court had gone beyond its jurisdiction, given the limited scope of a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
On what date is market value calculated in an acquisition?
As on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
What is the scope of a Section 18 reference?
It is limited, and the Calcutta High Court held the reference court had gone beyond it here.
Taking a land acquisition reference on appeal
- Anchor the valuation date to the Section 4(1) notification and put it in the grounds; everything else follows from it.
- Where status as lessee or owner is disputed, argue it separately from valuation so a wrong finding on one does not swallow the other.
- Test what the reference court decided against the scope of Section 18; it is a narrow jurisdiction.
- Plead perversity where the court below refused to decide, rather than decided wrongly — they are different grounds.
Source. Calcutta High Court, FA No. 77 of 2012, decided August 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Calcutta High Court and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in