Present vs For The
2021 Latest Caselaw 804 Tri

                                Page 1 of 2


                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA

                        REVIEW PET 28 OF 2021

       The In-charge, HR-ER, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
                                  Vrs.
                    Smti. Usha Rani Baishnab & Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)    : Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
                                Mr. P. Ghosh, Advocate.

    For the respondent (s)    : None.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 27.08.2021 Order Heard Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. Ghosh learned counsel appearing for the review-petitioner.

By way of filing the present review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC, the petitioner has urged this court to review the judgment and order (Oral) dated 28.06.2018 passed in LA Appeal No.16/2016.

I have meticulously gone through the entire judgment and the reasons thereof for determining the rate of compensation of the acquired land in question at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) per kani. In the judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 I have made clear distinction between the 'Viti' class and 'Nal' class of land. The sale instances as produced under Exbt. 1 and 2 were found to be similarly situated and in similar proximity of the acquired land. The land value under Exbt. 1 and 2 was determined at Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) per kani. After comparing the position of the acquired land and the lands under Exbt. 1 and 2 this court came to a finding that the acquired land in question and the

lands under Exbt.1 and 2 are situated in close proximity of a Government road.

This court while passing the judgment had concurred with the view of the learned LA Judge who determined the value of the land considering its classification as 'Nal' class of land at Rs.10,00,000/- per kani while the 'Viti' class of land was determined at Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. Learned LA Judge has reduced the amount considering the classification of the acquired land as 'Nal' class of land to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani.

I have also observed in the said judgment that in one Mouja there are several acres of land but the value of all the lands, in my opinion, cannot be of the same value because proximity, importance and potentiality of the lands are to be taken into account while determining the market price of the land.

I find no apparent error on the face of the judgment passed in LA Appeal No.16/2016 and accordingly, the instant review petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed.

The money is to be paid within a period of three weeks from today.

JUDGE