For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 458 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 2




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                            L.A. App. No. 43 of 2020

For Appellant(s)        :   Mr. A. L. Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)       :   Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

Mr. S. Adhikari, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 05/04/2021 Heard Mr. A. L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Mr. P. Gautam and Mr. S. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This is a land acquisition appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2019 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala District, Tripura in case No. Misc (LA) 31 of 2014.

The facts in brief are that, the learned L.A. Collector by issuing notification under Section-4 of the L.A. Act, acquired a land measuring 0.34 acres for establishing the drilling sight. The learned L.A. Collector determined the compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per kani.

Being aggrieved, the claimants, the private respondents herein, sought for reference under Section-18 of the L.A. Act.

In the reference proceeding, the statements of claims were filed by the private respondents who were the land losers. Counter statements have also been filed by the requiring department as well as the learned L.A. Collector, Sipahijala district. Evidences were recorded, on the basis of evidence and materials on record and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned L.A. Judge re-assessed the market price of the acquired land and determined the value of the land at Rs. 4,39,200/- per kani along with other statutory benefits. This enhancement of award by the learned L.A. Judge has prompted the appellant to file the instant appeal.

I have perused the judgment and considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and I find that the learned L.A. Judge has considered the highest exemplar in determining the value of the land. Thereafter, the learned L.A. Judge considering the nature and character of the land deducted 70% against the development cost.

In my opinion, there is no error in the judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the award as made by the learned L.A. Judge stands affirmed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

A. Ghosh