Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 5 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/20
GAHC010210212014
2025:GAU-AS:7481
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : LA.App./1/2014
JANAKI KOCH
W/O LT. ROHINI KUMAR KOCH, VILL. DUDHNOI, DIST. GOALPARA,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR,
GOALPARA.
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H DAS, MR.H GOGOI,MR. A MANNAF,MD A S ALI,MR. A
HOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A K SARKAR, GA, ASSAM,MR G GOSWAMI (R2, R3),MR. D
NATH SR. GOVT, ADV. ASSAM
Page No.# 2/20
Linked Case : LA.App./38/2018
SMTI. PREMESWARI RABHA
W/O- SARBANAND RABHA
VILL-DUDHNOI
REVENUE TOWN PART-I
PS-DUDHNOI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
PO AND PS- JOGIGHOPA
------------
Advocate for : MR H DAS
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Linked Case : LA.App./3/2014
DILIP KUMAR RABHA
S/O PRAKASH CH. RABHA
VILL. THEKASU PART-I
P.S. DUDHNOI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
Page No.# 3/20
GOALPARA
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.H DAS
Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
Linked Case : LA.App./8/2014
UTTAM RABHA
S/O LT. THANESWAR RABHA
VILL. THEKASU PART-I
P.S. DUDHNOI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
GOALPARA
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Page No.# 4/20
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.H GOGOI
Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
Linked Case : LA.App./37/2018
PRAKASH CHANDRA ROY
S/O LATE HARENDRA ROY
VILL - THEKASU PART-I
P.S. DUDHNOI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
GOALPARA
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 11
P.O. AND P.S. MALIGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
P.O. AND P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR H DAS
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
Page No.# 5/20
Linked Case : LA.App./64/2014
PUNAM CHAND SARMAH and 2 ORS.
2: DILIP KR. SARMAH
3: MOTILAL SARMAH
ALL ARE R/O VILL. DUDHNOI
REVENUE TOWN PART-I
P.S. DUDHNOI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
GOALPARA
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CON
N.F. RAILWAY
JOGIGHOPA
P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.H DAS
Advocate for : MR B N GOGOI appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Page No.# 6/20
Date of Hearing : 04.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Mannaf for the appellants, namely, (i) Janaki
Koch in LA Appeal No. 1/2014, (ii) Dilip Kumar Rabha in LA Appeal No. 3/2014,
(iii) Uttam Rabha in LA Appeal No. 8/2014, (iv) Punam Chand Sarmah in LA
Appeal No. 64/2014, (v) Prakash Chandra Roy in LA Appeal No. 37/2018, and
(vi) Premeswari Rabha in LA Appeal No. 38/2018.
2. These appeals mentioned above are against a common Judgment and Order
dated 29.06.2013, in connection with Misc. L.A. Case No. 19/2010 and other
Misc. L.A. cases. The appellants named above are aggrieved with the assessed
valuation of their land and the award which is a paltry sum as the appellants are
rendered landless. It is submitted that the appellants at present have nowhere
to go. They have been paid peanuts and the amount paid for acquisition of land
by the Revenue Authority is at present not sufficient for their survival.
3. Appellant Janaki Koch was awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,12,400/- along
with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 1B
appertaining to Dag No. 319(Pt)P and Patta No. 304;
Appellant Dilip Kumar Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,46,668/-
along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land
admeasuring 4B 7L appertaining to Dag No. 49 and Patta No. 247 of Dudhnoi
revenue town;
Appellant Uttam Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,820/- along
Page No.# 7/20
with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 1K
18L appertaining to Dag No. 316 and Patta No. 514;
Appellant Punam Chand Sarma was awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-
along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land
admeasuring 2B 7L appertaining to Dag No. 35 and Patta No. 75 of the same
revenue village, Dudhnoi revenue town, Pt-1;
Appellant Prakash Chandra Roy was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/-
along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land
admeasuring 3B 1K 7L appertaining to Dag No. 46 and Patta No. 351; and
Appellant Premeswari Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,90,532/-
along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land
admeasuring 4K 13L appertaining to Dag No. 37 and Patta No. 250.
4. The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as according
to them, the land acquired from them is suitable for business purpose. The
appellants earnestly pleaded before the Reference Court that the land so
acquired was Bhiti land but the learned Court below failed to consider the same
and dismissed the Reference cases considering the same as agricultural land as
assessed by the Collector. It is submitted that the appellants plots of land are
within the heart of the town and they have their residential houses. The
potentiality of the appellants land can be assessed by the sale deeds of the land
abutting the appellants land which have been furnished in the Reference cases.
While fixing the amount payable as compensation, the Deputy Collector
assessed Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha for Bhiti land (residential land) and Rs.
1,50,000/- per bigha for agricultural land along with 30% solatium and 12%
interest situated at village Dudhnoi, Goalpara, Assam.
5. The potentiality factor was however disputed by the respondents. The
Page No.# 8/20
respondent No. 1 filed written statement disputing the potentiality factor and
emphasising that the land does not come under the description of Bhiti land but
falls under the description as 'Salitoli' In addition, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3,
the Railways also filed a written statement taking similar plea as those taken in
the case of Bhiti land taken by the Collector.
Arguments for the Appellants:
6. It is contended that the learned District Judge, Goalpara, has committed a
serious error by not taking into consideration Exhibit-4, Sale deed No. 277 under
DAG No. 37/63 and Khatian No. 102 pertaining to value of land @ Rs. 6 lacs per
Bigha, which was the cardinal principle for evaluating the land with the market
price, either of the land in question or of similar plot of land adjacent to the land
in question (which was also prevailing at the time of publication).
7. It is contended that the learned District Judge ought to have taken note of
the fact that the Exhibit-4 reflects the market price of the land which is similar
to the land acquired by the respondent and ought to have allowed the reference
of the aforementioned appellants. It is further averred that the learned District
Judge ought to have considered all the three sale deeds marked as Exhibits-2, 3
& 4 with respect to the potential value of the acquired land of the appellants.
8. It is contended that the learned District Judge has misconceived the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1975 (1) SCC 158, and has
wrongly interpreted the obiter dicta and ratio-decidendi thereof. The learned
District Judge has failed to evaluate the correct principles of law and facts by
giving weightage to Section 23 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act,
1894 in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is hereby liable to be
set aside.
Page No.# 9/20
9. The learned Reference Judge has erred by deciding all the ten cases
perfunctorily in one common judgment without considering the different aspects
of the matter with respect to their respective reference cases. It is averred that
the learned Referral Court has misconceived the settled principles of law as laid
down by this Court in one of its leading cases in L.A. Collector Vs.
Radhamohan Debnath reported in 1998 (3) GLR 143.
10. It has been emphasized that the compensation ought to have been
enhanced by the learned District Judge as the award of the Deputy
Commissioner, Goalpara was inadequate. It has been well established by oral
and documentary evidence of the appellants that the acquired land in question
were of the same nature and value as the land sold vide Exhibit-4 and the
learned Reference Court ought to have allowed the higher market value for the
land acquired by the respondents. The learned Court has erroneously drawn an
inference that the nature of the land acquired is not similar to the land
described as per Exhibit-4.
Arguments for the respondents:
11. The learned counsel for the appellants laid stress in his argument that
notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
published on 01.12.2008. The land was taken over on 14.12.2009, and the
compensation for acquisition was awarded on 18.12.2009.
12. It is contended that the award was prepared solely on the basis of sale
deeds of 2002, 2003 & 2004. Three categories of land were acquired, which are
as follows:-
(i) Bhiti land,
(ii) Potential and developmental land, and
Page No.# 10/20
(iii) Agricultural land.
13. It is contended that the appellants were owners of developmental land but
were awarded Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation. Only the appellant of L.A.
No.64/2014 was awarded an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-.
14. The respondents of all the appeals mentioned above are the State of Assam
represented by the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Goalpara; the General
Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon and the Deputy Chief Engineer cum
Construction N.F. Railway, Jogighopa. It is submitted on behalf of the
respondents that the possession of the plots of land were taken over on
14.12.2009 for construction of B.G. railway line from Dudhnoi to Mendipather.
They have justified fixing and awarding the compensation @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per
bigha for the acquired land along with 30% solatium and 12% interest.
15. It was pleaded that the classification of land was appropriate and properly
classified by the District administration as per available records in their office
and after site verification. The plots of land acquired by the respondents are
purely agricultural land situated at a paddy field and there was no question of
treating those plots of land as bhiti land as claimed by the appellants. The
market value of Rs. 30,00,000/- per bigha quoted by the appellants was
unreasonable.
16. The acquired land was situated on the outskirts of Dudhnoi Revenue town,
far away from NH-37 with no approach from the National Highway as well as
other roads. There are no Government offices, non-Government entities,
educational institutions in close proximity to the acquired land. It was also
pleaded that all the plots of land lay about 1.5 kms away from the Dudhnoi
Bazaar or Dudhnoi Railway Station.
Page No.# 11/20
17. The topography of the land purchased by one Raja Basumatary may not be
similar to that of the acquired land. Furthermore, one single transaction of sale
of a plot of land cannot be treated as a guideline for assessment of the market
value. The remaining part of the argument for both the sides will be discussed
at the appropriate stage.
Findings:
18. The genesis of the case was that the Deputy Collector, Goalpara, acquired
the respective plots of land of the appellants for construction of railway line
from Dudhnoi to Mendipather at Dudhnoi Revenue, PT-1. According to the
appellants, the plots of land acquired were suitable for business purposes. There
is a PWD road in front of the land adjacent to the acquired plots of land with
dwelling houses standing thereon. The District administration acquired the land
on behalf of the Railway department for construction of railway track. It is
submitted that the land of Kausalya Rabha was acquired as 'Bhiti' land and a
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- was assessed and awarded to Kausalya Rabha.
It is further submitted that the nature of the land of the appellants is similar to
that of the land acquired by the respondents from Kausalya Rabha and the
appellant's land falls under the same category.
19. It was further pleaded by the appellants that a person named Raja
Basumatary purchased a plot of land @ Rs.30,00,000/- per bigha and thus the
appellants are entitled to a similar compensation. It was further pleaded that the
acquired plots of land are situated adjacent to NH-37 in the heart of Dudhnoi
Revenue Town with various institutions, Government offices, hotels, motor
garages, Dudhnoi Bazaar, Dudhnoi P.S. and Dudhnoi chariali flanking the
acquired land (appellant's land).
Page No.# 12/20
20. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.
21. The witnesses have stated about the adjacent National highway, schools,
offices and hospital, which was clearly ignored by the learned District Judge.
The D.C. has assessed the valuation on the basis of sale deeds of 2003 & 2004
for the year 2009. All the appellants are poor and landless people and with the
bare minimum compensation, the appellants are in dire straits. The assessment
ought to have been based on sale deeds of similar category of land in the
neighbourhood.
22. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted
that the assessment cannot be based on guesswork. There are
certain specifications based on which the award has to be assessed and the
learned District Judge has correctly dismissed the reference preferred by the
appellants.
23. The learned District Judge framed the following issues while deciding the
reference:-
"1) Has the petitioner any cause of action for the suit?
2) Is the Suit barred by limitation?
3) Whether the compensation awarded by the Deputy
Commissioner is inadequate in view of present market price of the
acquired land?
4) What will be the just and proper compensation payable to the
petitioners?
5) To what relief, the petitioners are entitled? "
24. On perusal of the evidence, it is noticed that the appellant as well as the
Page No.# 13/20
respective witnesses in the aforementioned reference cases stood by the
pleadings deposing that the land so acquired are bhiti land. As a proceeding
before the reference Court is at par to a proceeding of a regular suit, the
evidence as well as the pleadings are to be considered. The respondents failed
to refute the pleadings of the appellants substantiated by the evidence that the
plots of land so acquired by the respondent are not 'bhiti land'.
25. In Misc. LA case No. 19/2010, (LA Appeal No. 01/2014) Smt. Junaki Koch
deposed as PW-1, in the reference proceeding.
In Misc. LA Case No. 01/2010, (LA Appeal No. 03/2014) Shri Dilip Kumar Rabha
deposed as PW-1, Shri Raja Basumatary deposed as PW-2, Shri Tapan Kumar
Dey deposed as PW-3 and Shri Ratan Kumar Ghosh deposed as PW-
4.
In Misc. LA Case No. 17/2010, (LA Appeal No. 08/2014) Shri Uttam Rabha
adduced his evidence in chief through his affidavit in the original case.
In Misc. LA Case No. 26/10, (LA Appeal No. 64/2014) the appellant adduced the
evidence of Shri Motilal Sharma as PW-1 to substantiate his pleadings.
In Misc. LA Case No. 02/10, (LA Appeal No. 37/2018) the appellant adduced his
evidence in affidavit as PW-1, in support of his pleadings, and
In Misc. LA Case No. 18/10, (LA Appeal No. 38/2018) the appellant adduced her
evidence in chief through affidavit as PW-1.
26. As the documentary evidence marked as Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 were taken
into consideration in connection with all the 10 cases while deciding the same
through the impugned common judgment, the Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 are relevant to
this appeals.
27. It is submitted that an analogous Appeal No. 63/2014 and other appeals
vide order dated 25.07.2018, have already been disposed of by this Court which
Page No.# 14/20
has been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment and order
dated 29.06.2013 which i.e., Misc. LA Case No. 20/10 and other reference
cases. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has held that the land
acquired falls under the classification of bhiti land and thereby the value of the
land was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha to Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha.
28. Learned Government Advocate has submitted the information sought by this
Court in connection to these appeals. The information was forwarded by the
Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara on 25.06.2024 and Annexure-A is the report in
detail relating to the land acquired in connection with these appeals at hand.
The extract of the information is reproduced here in below:-
A. Details of Acquired land, class, area and approved market value for LA compensation:
Sl.No. Petitioner Order dated LA Ref. Dag Patta Area of Class of land Revenue Village Date of Market value LA Appeal
Name Case No. No. No. acquisition Notification u/s 4 approved/per No.
(B-K-L) of Land Bigha
Acquisition Act,
1 Prakash 29/06/2013 02/10 46 351 3-1-7 Salitoli Dudhnoi Revenue 01/12/08 2,20,000.00 37/2018
Chand Ray Town Pt-1
2 Uttam Rabha 29/06/2013 17/10 316 514 0-1-0 Saitoli Dudhnoi Revenue 01/12/08 2,20,000.00 08/2014
321 -- 0-0-18 (Roadside) Town Pt-1 1,50,000.00
Salitoli
3 Smti 29/06/2013 18/10 37 250 0-4-13 Salitoli Dudhnoi Revenue 01/12/08 2,20,000.00 38/2018
Premeswari Town Pt-1
Rabha
4 Janaki Koch 29/06/2013 19/10 319 304 1-0-0 Salitoli Dudhnoi Revenue 01/12/08 2,20,000.00 01/2014
Town Pt-1
5 Punachand 31/07/2013 26/10 35 75 2-0-7 Bari Dudhnoi Revenue 01/12/08 5,50,000.00 64/2014
Sarmah Town Pt-1
B. Details of sale deeds received & land value of that relevant of time i.e. 01.12.20028 (Date of
Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894):
Sl.No. Date Village Sale Deed Class of Dag No. Patta No. Area Value as per Calculated Remarks
No. land (B-K-L) Sale Deed value per
Bigha
1 27.10.2008 Dudhnoi 1592/1469 Bari 1030 292 0-2-0 1,04,000.00 2,60,000.00
Rajah Sahar
Pt-1
2 10.11.2008 Dudhnoi 1647/1489 Bari 315 312 0-0-10 3,00,000.00 30,00,000.00 Value seems to be comparatively
Rajah Sahar high. Sale Deeds executed just
Pt-1 before the date of Notification u/s 4
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Page No.# 15/20
3 20.11.2008 Dudhnoi 1690/1529 Bari 795/297 769 0-0-10 30,000.00 3,00,000.00
Rajah Sahar
Pt-1
4 28.11.2008 Dudhnoi 1725/1562 Bari 107 64 0-2-10 1,00,00.00 2,00,000.00
Rajah Sahar
Pt-1
5 19.05.2008 Dudhnoi 877/827 Salitoli 427 482 1-1-12 90,000.00 68,182.00
Rajah Sahar
Pt-1
6 16.07.2008 Dudhnoi 1199/1114 Salitoli 337 254 3-0-0 6,00,000.00 2,00,000.00
Rajah Sahar
Pt-1
7 26.11.2008 Dighli 1712/1550 Salitoli 426 194 0-1-5 50,000.00 2,00,000.00 Land of nearby village
29. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was 01.12.2008 and the
date of award was 18.12.2009 and possession was already acquired by the
respondents on 14.12.2009. The awards were prepared on the basis of sale
deeds of 2002, 2003 & 2004, from the appellants as the details of the sale
deeds received and land valuation at the relevant point of time i.e., 01.12.2008
was notably higher to the sale deeds on the basis if which the plots of land were
evaluated and assessed.
30. In connection with Misc. LA Case No. 01/2010, connected LA Appeal No.
03/2014, while adducing evidence, the petitioner/appellant has exhibited certain
documents. The witness Raja Basumatary has proved Exhibit-2 as sale deed No.
1647/1489. His witness Ratan Kumar Ghosh has also proved his sale deed
number 277 dated 23.01.1985 as Exhibit-4.
31. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid stress in his argument that while
assessing the valuation of the land, the learned Deputy Commissioner has
ignored the exhibited sale deeds. While deciding the appeal, the District Judge
also fell into error by ignoring the sale deed marked as Exhibit-4. As this sale
deed is relating to land adjacent to the land of the appellant Dilip Kumar Rabha
and the other appellants, the assessment ought to have been based on this sale
deed which clearly reflects that the land pertains to Dag No. 37/63 of Khatian
Page No.# 16/20
No. 102 and the valuation of the land was 6 lacs per bigha.
32. On the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner's report reveals that the land
pertaining to sale deed No. 1647/1489 was executed on 10.11.2008,
immediately before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the
value was exorbitantly high being valued at Rs. 30 lacs per bigha. The
respondents have argued on this aspect relating to the execution of the deed
immediately before the acquisition of the land.
33. Another witness of the appellant Shi Dilip Kumar Rabha, Shi Tapan Kumar
Dey exhibited sale deed No. 336/315 dated 23.02.2009 marked as Exhibit-3, but
this sale deed was executed after 01.12.2008. It is evident that the plots of land
in connection with this appeal falls under the revenue village of Dudhnoi
Revenue town, Part-1. The report clearly reveals that the market value of salitoli
land was estimated at Rs. 2,20,000/- and the market value of agricultural land
was Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellant Punamchand Sharma in LA Appeal No. 64/14
has already been awarded an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- in connection with Misc.
LA case No. 26/10.
34. After considering the submissions at the bar and after scrutinizing the trial
court records, it is discernible that the plots of land were acquired from a
particular area for construction of a railway line stretching Dudhnoi to
Mendipather. This area falls under the revenue village of Dudhnoi Revenue town
Part-1. It is but obvious that the plots of land will be adjacent to each other. The
District Commissioner, Goalpara has forwarded the details of acquired land, class
area and approved market value for land acquisition compensation of Prakash
Chandra Roy, appellant in connection with LA No. 37/018 arising out of Misc. LA
Case No. 02/2010,
Uttam Rabha who has preferred LA No. 8/2018 arising out of Misc. LA Case No.
Page No.# 17/20
17/2010,
Premeswari Rabha who has preferred the LA land Appeal No. 38/2018 arising
out of Misc. LA case No. 18/2010,
Junaki Koch who has preferred the land appeal No. 1/2014 arising out of Misc.
land acquisition case No. 19/2010 and
Punam Chand Sarmah who has preferred land appeal No. 38/2018 arising out of
Misc. LA case No. 18/2010.
35. The land of the appellants are classified as salitoli land but the land of
Punam Chand Sarmah is classified as bari land or bhiti land. Salitoli land is
agricultural land. It is noticeable that the classification of land of Dilip Kumar
Rabha who has preferred LA No. 3/2014 arising out of Misc. LA case No. 1/2010
has not been forwarded. The salitoli land was evaluated Rs. 2,20,000/- as per
the aforementioned report in favour of Uttam Rabha as the land is described as
salitoli roadside land. The other part of the salitoli land of Uttam Rabha was
evaluated @ Rs. 1,50,000/-. The land of the other appellants except Dilip Kumar
Rabha was evaluated @ Rs. 2,20,000/- despite being described as salitoli land.
36. It has been held by a coordinate bench of this court in connection with LA
case No. 63/2014, and other appeals that it would not be out of place to
mention here that "admittedly there was bhiti land which were acquired and for
the said reason there were two classified award, one for bhiti land which is Rs.
2,20,000/- per bigha and Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha for agricultural land."
37. It is also apparent from the report of the Deputy Commissioner that
although the other plots of land does not fall under the category of salitoli road
side but the lands are described as simple salitoli land, and the same amount of
compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been awarded to the appellants.
Page No.# 18/20
38. I would not like to disagree with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court relied upon by the Railways in connection with L.A. Appeal No.
63/2014 and other appeals in case of Putul Kachari and 2 Ors, wherein vide
order dated 25.07.2018, it has been observed that:-
" It would not be out of place to mention here that
admittedly there was Bhiti land which were acquired and for the said
reason there were two classified award, one for Bhiti land which is
Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha and Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha for agricultural
land. The learned court below held that the appellants failed to prove
their respective cases on preponderance of probability. But the learned
court below ought to have taken into consideration that Bhiti land was
also acquired which can very well be prepondered from the rate of
assessment of Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha for Bhiti land. For the said
reason I am unable to accept the findings of the learned reference
court inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants are to be read as
whole and on such reading the appellants are able to show that the
land fell within the Bhiti classification. Accordingly I am constrained to
hold that the land acquired falls under the classification of Bhiti land
thereby enhancing the value of the same to Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha,
the rate of assessment of Bhiti land by the competent authority. "
39. Reverting back to this case, it is held that an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- per
bigha was awarded as compensation for Salitoli land.
40. Relying on the decision of this Court in Putul Kachari (Supra), it is hereby
held that the land of the appellants also falls under the Bhiti land and after
assessing the valuation of the land of the appellants as Bhiti land, the
compensation is to be awarded to the appellants. It has to be borne in mind
that the report forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara on 25.06.2024
has evaluated the lands in this appeal as salitoli land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per
bigha. The appellants have produced evidence at the stage of the reference
proceeding. Several sale deeds have been proved by the appellants and this
Court vide order dated 03.09.2019, asked the learned Additional Senior
Page No.# 19/20
Government Advocate to produce original record of Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4's sale
deeds along with the information from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Goalpara, if
there was any sale deed of similar nature in and around the same time when
the Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 were executed.
41. The order dated 12.09.2019 of this Court in connection with these appeals
reflects that information was provided by the Revenue Department that Exhibits-
2, 3 & 4 are genuine and acceptable sale deeds.
42. Thus, the Learned Court has erred while rejecting the valuation of the land
indicated in the three sale deeds by expressing a view that the sales had taken
place in the proximate past when acquisition of the land was being made. As
these sale deeds are genuine sale deeds, they ought not to have been rejected
by the court. The evidence has to be analyzed as a whole. Sale deeds of land
near the acquired land proximate to the time of acquisition has to be
considered.
This court vide order dated 12.09.2019, again asked the Revenue Authority to
provide some sale deeds of the relevant point of time regarding the same class
of land as that of the acquired land so as to arrive at a prima facie conclusion
qua the valuation of the land at that point of time. Acting on the order of this
court, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the aforementioned report and
certified copies of sale deeds of adjacent lands vide memo No. 1-34/SRO/GLP
Goalpara dated 21.06.2024 and letter No. GRQ 02/2008/248 dated 25.06.2024,
which report has been specifically described in the foregoing discussions.
43. Although it is submitted that the plots of land of the appellants falls under
the category of Salitoli land, it has already been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in similar appeals arising out of the same cause of action that the
plots of land of the present appellants and the neighbours whose land have
Page No.# 20/20
been acquired fall under the Bhiti category of land. The L.A. appeals 63/2014
are disposed of by this Court arising out of the same cause of action i.e., arising
out of a common judgment and order dated 29.06.2013 in L.A. Case No. 20,27
and other cases.
44. It will be apt to reiterate that a proceeding of this nature is at par with a
civil suit and the evidence adduced by the parties has to be assessed on the
preponderance of probability. Here as discussed above, in this case, the
appellants have already adduced evidence whereas the respondents have
submitted report without substantiating evidence. Rather they have supported
the respondents evidence by affirming that the sale deeds marked as Exhibits-
2, 3 & 4 are genuine and acceptable sale deeds.
45. Thereby, the appeals are allowed with a direction to the Revenue authority
to assess the appellants land properly as Bhiti land and not salitoli land, and pay
the solatium along with the rate of interest.
46. The entire process of assessment and the payment of award is to be
completed within 6 months from the date of this order.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
