For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 481 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 2




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                             L.A. App. No. 106 of 2019
For Appellant(s)       :    Mr. A. De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)      :    Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 08/04/2021 Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.

This land acquisition appeal has been filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction No. 1), N. F. Railway, against the judgment and award dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.1, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in connection with case No. Misc (LA) 29 of 2015, awarding an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- per kani for "Nal" class of land.

Briefly stated, the land in question was acquired by the District Collector for the purpose of laying down railway line from Agartala to Sabroom. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned L.A. Judge has committed a serious error on facts, determining the market price of the acquired land at Rs.7,50,000/- per kani. According to him, the acquired land is an abandoned class of land situated far away from the exemplar deed (Exbt-1), which is situated just adjacent to the National Highway.

Further, the exemplar deed is a small piece of land measuring 2 gandas and the same was executed just 10 days before the date of acquisition. So, this exemplar (Exbt-1) ought not to have been relied upon by the learned L.A. Judge while determining the market price of the acquired land. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the acquired land is situated at a distance of two and half km way from the National Highway.

On the other hand, Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has defending the judgment of the learned L.A. Judge submitted that the valuation as determined by the learned L.A. Judge is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the findings arrived at by the learned L.A. Judge, it transpires that the learned L.A. Judge has deducted 70% against the development cost. In my opinion, 75% deduction as development cost instead of 70% would be just and reasonable, considering the nature and class of land.

Accordingly, the award is interfered with to the extent that the learned L.A. Collector shall deduct 75% against the development cost instead of 70% as determined by the learned L.A. Judge.

With the aforesaid modifications, the present appeal stands allowed in part to the extent as indicated above.

JUDGE

A. Ghosh