Tripura High Court

Unknown vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 4 January, 2021

                               Page 1 of 9




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A

                      L.A. App. No. 58 of 2018

     3. Shri Rabijoy Chakma, son of late Debendra Chakma,
        resident of Mainama, P.O. & P.S. Chailengta, District;
        Dhalai.

                                                   .....Appellant

                          -V E R S U S-


1.      The Land Acquisition Collector, Dhalai Tripura, office
        of the District Magistrate & Collector, Dhalai Tripura
        District.
2.      Officer Commanding, 112 RCC (GREF), C/O 99APO,
        Khasibari, Panisagar, P.O. & P.S. Panisagar, District:
        North Tripura.
                                                 ..... Respondents

3. Shri Neharu Chakma, son of late Debendra Chakma,

4. Shri Milan Chakma, son of late Debendra Chakma,

5. Smti. Rangabi Chakma, daughter of late Debendra Chakma,

6. Shri Narayan Chakma, son of late Debendra Chakma,

7. Shri Noyachan Chakma, son of late Debendra Chakma,

[serial respondents No.3 to 7 all of Mainama, P.O. & P.S. Chailengta, District: Dhalai.] .....Claimant-proforma respondents B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Panday, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)          :      Mr. B. Majumder, ASG.
                                  Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC.
Date of hearing and
delivery of Judgment
& Order                   :       04.01.2021
Whether fit for reporting :       YES/NO





                JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

In I.A. No. 01 of 2020, this Court vide order dated

04.01.2021 has allowed the application for addition of the General

Manager, National Highways and Infrastructure Development

Corporation Ltd., (NHIDCL), Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, Govt. of India, a Govt. of India undertaking having its

PMU office-2nd floor of Rani Das Building, A. A. Road, Teliamura,

Khowai District, Tripura-799205 as a party respondent No.3. This

Court has impleaded the said corporation as respondent No.3.

Accordingly, the cause title is corrected by this Court as under:

"The General Manager, National Highways and Infrastructure

Development Corporation Ltd., (NHIDCL), Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, a Govt. of India

undertaking having its PMU office-2nd floor of Rani Das Building,

A. A. Road, Teliamura, Khowai District, Tripura-799205".

[2] Mr. Panday, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant has submitted that this appeal is covered by a judgment of

a coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court may pass order in

terms of the judgment passed earlier in L.A. App. No. 48 of 2018,

L.A. App. No. 50 of 2018 and L.A. App. No. 54 of 2018 by a

coordinate Bench of this Court. Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASG

and Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the

respondents have no objection if the judgment is passed in terms of

the judgments as aforementioned. Accordingly, this Court has

passed the following order.

[3] This is an appeal under Section-54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (The L.A. Act in short) against the judgment

and award delivered by the learned L.A. Judge dated 21.06.2018

passed by Mr. P. Kumar, learned L.A. Judge (2nd), Unakoti Judicial

District, Kailashahar in Civil Misc. (LA) 42 of 2014.

[4] The facts of the case is that, vide notification dated

17.12.2003 the land of the appellant pertaining to CS Plot

Nos.1649/P, 1871/P,1866/P and 1652/P of Khatian Nos.146/1 and

146/2 of Mouja- Maynama under Longtharai valley subdivision in

Dhalai District, was acquired by the Government of Tripura for

construction of NH-44/A from Manu to Shimlung vide declaration

No.F.9(1)-REV/ACQ/V/2003 dated 11.02.2004 which was

published in extraordinary issue of the Tripura Gazette. It is the

further case of the appellant that all amenities were available close

to the acquired land. The land in question is situated near Lalcherra

market and many shops and Govt. departments are there. There are

schools, hospitals motor stand etc. Total land acquired by the

government measuring 0.23 acres is Nal class of land. The LA

Collector after taking up the proceeding had awarded compensation

@ 1,10,546/- per kani.

[5] Being aggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector,

the appellant had prayed for reference under Section-18 of the LA.

Act. Thereafter the L.A. Judge took up the proceeding, issued

notices upon the parties concerned. The L.A. Judge while deciding

the reference did not find any ground to interfere with the award as

passed by the L.A. Collector and the reference was thus, rejected.

Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment and

award of rejection by the L.A. Judge, the land looser has preferred

the present appeal before this Court demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- per

kani for acquisition of his land.

[6] It has been submitted by Mr. B. Majumder, learned

ASG and Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the

Union of India and National Highways and Infrastructure

Development Corporation Ltd., the respondent No.3 that there is no

cogent reason and ground for interference with the judgment

passed by the learned L.A. Judge and upholding judgment and

award of the L.A. Collector.

[7] On the other hand, Mr. K. Panday, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned L.A.

Judge while deciding the reference, has misdirected himself and the

judgment suffers from non-application of mind. Mr. Panday,

learned counsel further submitted that the learned L.A. Judge has

failed to consider that the position of the land has not been properly

considered by the learned L.A. Judge and the award of the L.A.

Collector was on the lower side. According to Mr. Panday, the

acquired land in question fetching much higher value than that of

the value which was determined by the learned L.A. Collector.

Learned counsel for the appellant also has drawn my attention to

the effect that there were so many trees and huts on the acquired

land.

[8] I have gone through the records and considering the

submission of the counsel appearing for the parties. I have also

perused the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court

in the appeal referred to above. This Court while determining those

appeals had observed thus:

"[8] The mode of assessing the compensation is homogenous inasmuch the land value that has been determined by the LA Collector are common. For purpose of reference, those determinants may be reproduced hereunder:

      Nal                                          Rs.1,50,000/- per kani
      Bastu                                        Rs.2,00,000/- per kani





      Bhiti/Chara                                                   Rs.1,20,000/- per kani
      Dokan                                                         Rs.1,60,000/- per kani
      Pukur/Pukurpar/Lunga                                          Rs.80,000/- per kani
      Khelermath/Debasthan                                          Rs.30,000/- per kani

Rasta/Path/Sarak/Karan/Chhatrabash/Layekpatit

On the basis of the said land value, the award has been made. For purpose of determining this value of the various classes of land, 6[six] sale transactions had been considered by the LA Collector and in the assessment sheet the value and other formations have been reflected in a tabular form. For purpose of ready reckoner the said table is reproduced below:

Sl. Deed No.& CS Plot No. Area Class of land Value of Rate per kani No. Date land sold 1 1-9 dt. 1322 0.05 Bastu Rs.15,00/- Rs.1,20,000/-

21.01.2004 2 1-11 1560 0.10 Bastu Rs.14,000/- Rs.56,000/-

dt.22.01.2004 3 1-21 1727,1729, 0.30 Pukur,nal,dokan Rs.1,20,000/ Rs.1,60,000/-

       dt.04.02.2004      1730,1726,                                           -
                          1731,1732
4            1-32         1362           0.16 Nal                        Rs.60,000/-    Rs.1,50,000/-
         dt.09.02.04
5      1-45 dt.26.2.4     1370           0.20 Bastu                      Rs.1,00,000/   Rs.2,00,000/-
6       1-48 dt.1.3.4     571/2508       0.20 Bastu                      Rs.60,000/-    Rs.1,20,000/-

[9] It is apparent from the said table that the highest sale exemplar that was considered by the LA Collector for the Nal class of land that fetched the consideration money Rs.1,50,000/- per kani in a proximate time of acquisition i.e. the transaction was carried out on 09.02.2004. However, the highest sale transaction for the Bastu class of land as reflected in the sale deeds as considered by the LA Collector vide 1-45 dated 26.02.2004 is Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. Therefore, so far the land value of land of Bastu class is concerned, the LA Collector has applied the highest value from the sale transactions that he had considered, but he had not done so while determining the value of the Nal class of land. Rather he has taken a strange method and arbitrarily determined the rate at Rs.80,000/- per kani for Nal class of land. Following the principle as deduced by the apex court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust [Regd.] Faridkot & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 AIR SC 2721, the LA Collector has acted contrary to the interest of the land-losers. The apex court has, in no unambiguous words, propounded the principle in the following words:

"15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being

compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."

[10] It is apparent from reading of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) that the apex court has laid down that it will be only fair where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority or the court for fixing the fair compensation. This court, therefore, is of the view that Nal class of land should have been valued at Rs.1,50,000/- per kani in respect of the land, as acquired, for construction of NH-44/A from Mouja-Chailengta. So far the damage is concerned in LA App. No.50 of 2018, the damage should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.28,361/- and so far the damage in L.A App. No.54 of 2018 is concerned, the value of the structure, tress and huts, should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The component of the damage initially has to be kept apart and that should be added only after determining the compensation under Section 23 of the LA Act, meaning, first the value of the land be determined in terms of the rate viz. Rs.2,00,000/- per kani for Bastu class of land [unchanged] and Rs.1,50,0000/- per kani for Nal class of land [changed]. Thereafter, the additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the LA Act at 12% be calculated and also the solatium under Section 23(2) of the LA Act @30% be calculated making an aggregate of the entire amount. The interest as on compensation be calculated under Section 34 of the LA Act. After the compensation is determined, separately on the basis of those components as stated, the damage shall be added with that amount. The compensation, inclusive of all, be paid to the appellants within a period of 3[three] months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order.

In terms of the above, these appeals are partly allowed."

[9] In view of the determination of the value of the land as

discussed above, the market price of the present land also has been

followed @ 1,50,000/- per kani being acquisitioned under same

notification and same classes of land. So far as the damages out of

demolition of huts and shops premises are concerned, the valuation

of the land is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.724/- for trees.

Further, for removal of huts and machineries the L.A. Collector had

awarded Rs.5046/-. According to this Court, it should be enhanced

to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.5046/-. Apart from determination of above

compensation under different heads, the appellant will be entitled

to all other statutory benefits under the L.A. Act.