Tripura High Court
The In-Charge vs Sri Haradhan Majumder on 18 February, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP 42 OF 2020
The In-Charge, HR-ER,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Badharghat,
Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799014
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Haradhan Majumder,
S/o late Sadhan Chandra Majumder, resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN-799131
2. Sri Chandan Majumder,
S/o late Sadhan Chandra Majumder, resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN-799131
3. Smt. Alaka Majumder,
D/o late Sadhan Chandra Majumder, resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN-799131
4. Smt. Lipika Majumder,
D/o late Sadhan Chandra Majumder, resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN-799131
----Claimant-respondents(s)
5. The Land Acquisition Collector,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN-799103
6. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
----Proforma-Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. AL Saha, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
Of Judgment & Order : 18.02.2021
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
Heard Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel for the appellant- ONGC
as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5- LA
Collector.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated
03.06.2019 passed by the learned LA Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala in case
No. Misc (LA) 33 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned LA Judge
has enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land.
3. Briefly stated, by virtue of notification under Section 4 of the
LA Act, vast lands were acquired by the LA Collector for construction of
GCS Trishna under Sonamura Sub-Division, Sepahijala. The LA Collector
had awarded compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 1 lakh per kani. The
land was classified as nal class of land. Being dissatisfied with the award
passed by the LA Collector, the respondents no. 1 to 4 herein had prayed
for reference. In the reference court i.e. before the court of learned LA
Judge, claim statements were filed by the respondents no. 1 to 4.
4. Having receipt of the notices, the LA Collector as well as the
requiring department i.e. ONGC, appellant herein have filed their counter
claim statement. Issues were framed by the learned LA Judge. On the basis
of issues, evidences were recorded as introduced by the parties. Two Sale
Deeds were brought on record bearing no. I-437 dated 16.03.2006 and I-
1298 dated 28.07.2006. The learned LA Judge at the closure of the
evidences had decided the suit on the basis of the findings as noted here-in-
below:
"From the aforesaid judgments it appears that the range of deduction
may very from case to case from 25%-70% considering the different aspects
of a particular case. In the case at hand after perusal of the deed bearing No.
I-437 dated 16.03.2006 it appears that the same was located at a distance of
less than 1000 meters from the acquired land in question and the plot as
mentioned in another deed bearing No. 1-1298 dated 28.07.2006 is situated
nearby the acquired land. But the same deed was executed on a post
notification date. Thus, the market value of the acquired land in question
should be around the price fetched for the sale and purchase of the plot of
land as mentioned in exhibit-1.
On the other hand the requiring department relief upon the some
documents which were taken into consideration by the L.A. Collector at the
time of hearing and preparation of assessment note. The L.A. Collector in the
assessment note gave certain reasonings and after perusal of the same it
appears to me that the L.A. Collector at the time of assessment took average
of the various sale deeds ignoring the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforenoted cases.
Further more, it also appears to me that the difference between acquired
land in question and the land as mentioned in the exemplar sale deed is
comparatively less and the distance of both the plots are less than 1000
meters and there is no basic difference about the classification of the lands i.e.
the acquired land in question with the land as mentioned in exemplar deed".
5. I have observed that in the present case, the learned LA Judge
had deducted 70% against the development cost of the land though it is a
nal class of land. In my opinion, 70% deduction is on much higher side.
However, I am not touching this point at this appellate stage.
6. Having gone through the records and the judgment, I find no
error in the aforesaid findings of the learned LA Judge. The learned LA
Judge has rightly held that the exemplar Sale Deeds are in the close
vicinity of the acquired land.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. The
appellant is directed to pay the awarded amount within a period of 2 (two)
months from today, if not already paid.
Send back the LCRs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Saikat
