Tripura High Court
Abdul Rahaman vs General Manager on 19 February, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP NO.24 OF 2018
1. Abdul Rahaman.
2. Abdul Mannan.
3. Ramjan Ali.
4. Jakir Hossain.
5. Kabir Hossain.
All are sons of Late Ayet Ali
6. Samarthyaban Bibi
W/o Late Ayet Ali
Resident of Rajdharnagar, Udaipur, District-Gomati,
Tripura.
------ Appellants
Versus
1. General Manager
North Frontier Railway, Pandu Port Road, Maligaon,
Guwahati, Assam, 781012.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer
N.F. Railway, Ghurkhabasti,
Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector
Gomati District, Udaipur.
------Respondents
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 19.02.2021
Whether fit for reporting: NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants as well as Mr. Asutosh De, learned standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-N.F. Railway.
2. This is a land acquisition appeal filed by the claimant-
land owners against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2016
passed in Misc. (L.A) No.74 of 2013 by the learned L.A. Judge,
Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur for enhancement of the
award/compensation.
3. In this appeal, the dispute is only in regard to the
determination of the compensation.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has argued that the learned L.A. Judge in one of his judgments
has awarded more amount in respect of an adjacent land but in
the instant case, the learned L.A. Judge had awarded lesser
amount of compensation in favour of the claimant-appellants. So
the claimants by preferring the instant appeal have claimed
enhancement of the quantum of compensation as awarded by
the learned L.A. Judge.
5. On the other hand, Mr. De, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents-N.F. Railway has submitted that in
a similar and identical plot of land, a coordinate Bench of this
Court in L.A. Appeal No.84 of 2017 had assessed the
compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.9,60,000/- per kani. As
such, this Court should adhere to it.
6. Mr. De, learned counsel has produced the copy of the
judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of
this Court in L.A. Appeal No.84 of 2017, wherein against plot
No.483/p, the said Bench had awarded Rs.9,60,000/-. The plot
of land in question in this appeal is 479/p & 480/1190/p.
7. I find that the learned L.A. Judge had determined
compensation in respect of plot No.478/p @ Rs.11,20,000/- per
kani and for the plot of land bearing No. 479/p and 480/1190/p
@ Rs.8,00,000/- per kani. In view of the judgment passed in
L.A. Appeal No. 84 of 2017, wherein the learned L.A. Judge had
determined the value of market price for the plot of land bearing
No. 483/p at Rs.9,60,000/-, in my opinion, a similar rate should
also be awarded to the present claimant-appellants.
8. Accordingly, the rate of compensation of the acquired
plot bearing No.478/p @ Rs.11,20,000/- as determined by the
learned L.A. Judge shall remain un-interfered. However, the
award as made by the learned L.A. Judge for the plot of land
bearing No. 479/p and 480/1190/p is interfered with to the
extent that the value of the market price of the acquired plot
bearing No. 479/p and 480/1190/p would be determined at
Rs.9,60,000/- in conformity with the L.A. Appeal No.84 of 2017.
9. Needless to say, the claimant-respondents shall be
entitled to all other statutory benefits including the interest
under Section 34 of the L.A. Act.
10. With the aforesaid terms, the instant L.A Appeal stands
allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
suhanjit
