Tripura High Court
High Court Of Tripura vs For on 19 February, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. 12/2021
PRESENT
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asst. SG
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
19/02/2021
Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Asst. SG for the appellant.
2. This is a land acquisition appeal against the judgment and award dated
04.01.2020 passed in connection with Misc (LA) 35 of 2015 by the learned
LA Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura.
3. A large chunk of land was acquired for construction of BOP at NC
Nagar under Sonamura Sub-Division by virtue of a notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act. Being noticed, the claimants i.e. the respondents
herein had appeared before the LA Collector. The LA Collector after hearing
the parties and considering the materials as brought on record before him
had determined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 10 lakh per kani.
The claimant-respondents were not happy with the award. As such, the
claimant-respondents had sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA
Act.
4. The learned LA Judge, accepting the reference had received the claim
statement filed by the claimant-respondents as well as counter claim
statement filed by the LA Collector as well as the appellant. In course of
trial, issues were framed on the basis of pleadings and materials placed
before the learned LA Judge. Evidences were recorded. Some sale
exemplars were produced which were marked as exhibits. Ultimately,
having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned LA Judge while
determining the market price of the acquired land had enhanced the rate of
compensation @ Rs. 15 lakh per kani by his judgment dated 04.01.2020, as
aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award of
compensation, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the
enhancement of the award by the learned LA Judge.
5. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Asst. SG while arguing the appeal at
the time of admission has drawn my attention to one of the findings of the
learned LA Judge which is as under:
"The acquisition took place in the year 2012 and by this time the
valuation of land is also has been increased in our State and further more no
survey map has been submitted by the referring claimants to locate the
distance of the acquired land with the lands of exhibit 1, 2 and 3.
So, there is no scope to place upon those deeds and the document relied
upon by the OP No.1 also cannot be taken into consideration since the LA
Collector has determined the valuation of the land @Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani
vide assessment note dated 22.11.2012
But, considering the exhibited documents it also appears to me that the
LA Collector at the time of determination of market value has failed to
appreciate the prevailing market price.
So, after hearing both the sides and after going the facts and
circumstances of the case it appears to me that if the valuation of the
acquired land is determined @Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani in that case the very
purpose of justice would suffice. Hence, the present referring claimants are
entitled to get enhanced amount of compensation @Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani
which LA Collector has failed to appreciate in this case".
Mr. Majumder, learned Asst. SG has tried to persuade this court that
the findings as quoted above are found to be contradictory. There is no
specific reason assigned by the learned LA Judge to enhance the rate of
compensation.
6. True it is, the above findings might not warrant the learned LA Judge
to enhance the rate as was determined by the LA Collector. However, it is
settled principle of law that when there is lack of evidence, the court can
exercise its discretionary power on the basis of some guess work.
7. After thoughtful consideration to the rate of enhancement, in my
opinion, such enhancement does not appear unreasonable to call for
interference by this court. However, it is directed that the learned LA Judge
while determining the market price of acquired land must assign some
specific reason for enhancement of the award. If the learned LA Judge wants
to determine the market price on the basis of some guess work then he
should reflect it in his order.
8. Considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Act is beneficial
legislation, I am not inclined to interfere with such enhancement as
aforestated. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 04.01.2020 passed
in Misc(LA) 35 of 2015 by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura
are hereby affirmed and upheld and the instant appeal is dismissed being
devoid of merit.
Send back the LCRs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Saikat
