A writ court cannot disturb land compensation assessment absent perversity or a vitiated decision-making process.

The petitioners challenged the assessment and fixation of compensation at ₹1,40,813 for 30 decimals of land comprised in Plot Nos. 246 and 247 at Mouza Mojpur/Moipur, Police Station Tarakeswar, which had been utilised by the Public Health Engineering Department for a public water-supply scheme.

The State contended that the land was handed over to the PHE pursuant to a consent arrangement, under which the petitioners agreed to accept compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.

An earlier assessment valued the land at ₹27,655 as on 21 April 1995.

In earlier proceedings, the Division Bench remitted the matter to the Collector for fresh determination of compensation after hearing the parties and considering evidence regarding market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, with the market value to be assessed as on the date possession was taken.

Pursuant thereto, the Land Acquisition Collector, in consultation with the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Haripal, assessed compensation at ₹1,40,813 by order dated 12 March 2015.

The petitioners challenged that assessment in the present writ petition, while the State argued that the assessment had attained finality and that a fresh acquisition process could not be initiated because the land had already been handed over consensually and utilised for the public purpose.

Whether the petitioners could challenge, in writ jurisdiction, the compensation of ₹1,40,813 determined by the Land Acquisition Collector pursuant to the Division Bench’s remand order.

Whether the Collector’s assessment was vitiated by illegality, perversity, or failure to consider relevant materials and principles governing determination of market value.

Whether the State was required to initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding where the land had been handed over to the PHE pursuant to a consent arrangement.

The Court applied the principle that judicial review is concerned with the legality and propriety of the decision-making process, not with reassessing the merits of an administrative determination as an appellate court.

Interference with the Collector’s determination was therefore permissible only upon proof of glaring illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of relevant and mandatory materials.

The Court also proceeded on the basis of the principles under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which governed determination of market value and compensation, as directed by the Division Bench in the earlier appellate proceedings.

The consensual handing over of the land and the parties’ agreement to accept compensation determined by the competent authority were treated as material circumstances governing the dispute.

The Court found that the materials established that the land had not been acquired through a formal acquisition proceeding but had been handed over by the petitioners to the PHE for a public purpose under a consent arrangement, with an undertaking to accept appropriate compensation.

Pursuant to the Division Bench’s remand, the Collector reconsidered the compensation, consulted the jurisdictional Additional District Sub-Registrar, and assessed the market value by taking into account the value of contiguous land on the date possession was handed over.

The petitioners failed to identify any relevant statutory parameter or material that the Collector had ignored, or any defect in the decision-making process warranting judicial review.

Since the writ court could not act as an appellate authority merely to substitute its own assessment of market value, and no perversity or glaring illegality was demonstrated, interference was held unwarranted.

It upheld the Land Acquisition Collector’s assessment of compensation at ₹1,40,813, finding no jurisdictional error, perversity, or failure to consider relevant materials.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.