Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs (C) Smt. Barnali Das Sen on 1 March, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP 51 OF 2017
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway,
Badharghat Railway Station, P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S. Amtali,
Agartala, District : West Tripura
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. (a) Mr. Shyam Krishna Das,
S/o late Bichitra Mohan Das, resident of North Chandrapur,
P.O. South Chandrapur, P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District- Gomati, Tripura
1. (b) Smt. Pratima Das,
W/o late Bichitra Mohan Das, resident of North Chandrapur,
P.O. South Chandrapur, P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District- Gomati, Tripura
1. (c) Smt. Barnali Das Sen,
D/o late Bichitra Mohan Das, W/o Sri Anirban Sen, resident of Pandavpur
Sekerkote, P.O. Rayermura, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. De, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. DK Das Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
Of Judgment & Order : 01.03.2021
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. De, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. DK Das Choudhury and Mr. P. Gautam, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 against the judgment and award dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned
Land Acquisition Judge, Court no. 2, Gomati, Udaipur, in Misc. (L.A.) 18 of
2014.
3. Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the
outset submitted that the mode of determining the rate of the acquired land is
entirely faulty and against the settled principles of law in respect of comparable
sale instance. According to Mr. Dey, learned counsel the Land Acquisition
Judge by relying the sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 has committed a
serious error inasmuch as the said land has recorded an exorbitant price, if
compared with the other sale instances as produced by the referring-claimants.
However, Mr. Dey, learned counsel has admitted fairly that the market value
has been determined for the said land by way of deduction at the rate of 75%,
following the principles as enunciated by the apex court in Administrator
General, West Bengal versus Collector, Varanasi reported in (1988) 2 SCC
150 and Subh Ram & Ors versus Haryana State & Another reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 444. Mr. Dey, learned counsel was tenacious to contend
repeatedly that selection of the sale instance is grossly wrong, inasmuch as
while examining the said deed, the land acquisition collector had observed that
"Land of Deed No. A i.e. sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 which has
produced by the landowner(sic.) as evidence of their claim cannot be taken
into consideration towards fixing rate of land proposed to be acquired,
because the transaction seems to be registered at a unjustified rate & may be
intentionally." That was not noticed or overlooked.
4. Mr. Dey, learned counsel has further submitted that the sale deed
dated 13.01.2010 is also a sale instance for a land measuring .04 acre whereas
the land that has been acquired measures 0.66 acre. Thus, those are not
comparable. A very small quantity of land, such as .04 acre as in the case in
hand cannot be compared with the vast tract of land measuring 0.66 acre.
According to Mr. Dey, learned counsel even the deduction has been made
whimsically. Only when the land can be compared then after considering the
standard of the land and the requirement of development, such deduction can be
made to adjust and have the appropriate rate.
5. From the other side, Mr. DK Das Choudhury, learned counsel
appearing for the referring-claimants has submitted that that was not the only
deed which was placed in the evidence by the referring-claimants in support of
their claim to have Rs.12 lakhs per kani. Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel
has further submitted that two other sale deeds were introduced. One being the
sale deed No.2820 dated 21.12.2006 shows the land value at the rate of Rs.8
lakhs per kani for a land measuring .06 acre, where as another sale deed No.1-
10 demonstrates the land rate at Rs.10 lakhs per kani for a land measuring .04
acre. Further, the sale deed No.1-11 demonstrate the land rate at Rs.4,50,000/-
for a land measuring .36 acre. Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel has thus
submitted that if all the deeds are taken into account and appreciated then it
would be apparent that the Land Acquisition Judge did not commit any mistake
and he has determined a reasonable price for the land as acquired from the
referring-claimants under the notification No.F.9(2)-REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated
28.01.2010 for construction of railway line from Agartala to Sabroom under
Mouja-North Chandrapur under Udaipur Sub-Division. It is not also in dispute
that the land measuring .66 acre has been acquired from the referring-claimants
and the Land Acquisition Collector had determined the award based on the land
rate at Rs.90,000/- per kani.
6. Being aggrieved thereof, the referring-claimants pressed for a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to get a sum of Rs. 12
lakhs per kani. As discussed above, both the referring-claimants and the land
acquisition judge adduced the oral and documentary evidence. The referring-
claimants adduced four sale instances being the sale deed No.1-2820, the sale
deed No.1-10, the sale deed No.1-11 and the sale deed No.1-103 (all marked as
Exbt.1 Series). That apart, they have adduced the map of Mouja- North
Chandrapur. From perusal of the deeds, it appears that except the plot number
as described in sale deed No.1-103 none of the plots which were under
transaction in those sale deeds (Exbt.1 series) has close proximity with the
acquired land. On ultimate analysis, the learned LA Judge determined the
market price of the acquired land at Rs. 7,50,000/- per kani corresponding to
plot no. 725,726,727 and Rs. 15 lakh per kani corresponding to plot no. 1242.
Hence, this appeal.
7. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel, this
court finds that the bone of contention is the selection of the sale exemplar and
the mode of determining the land rate. True it is that having perused the rate of
different deeds, even those were produced by the referring- claimants, it appears
that the deed No.1-103 (Exbt.1 series) is the odd deed as it carries exorbitant
rate at Rs.30 lakhs per kani. Even if the contention of Mr. Dey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that deeds have been executed between the relatives
of the referring-claimants for purpose of garnering undue advantage from the
land acquisition proceeding is discarded, then also the said deed does not appear
to be comparable for purpose of determining the rate of the acquired land for
two reasons viz.
(i) The deed has been executed on the day which is very close to the date
of publishing of the acquisition notification.
(ii) The quantum of the land that is under transaction is very small and
that small land cannot be compared with a big tract of land deed
measuring .66 acre.
8. The most comparable deed according to this court is deed No.1-11 for
the reason that the transaction made by the said deed was for a land measuring
.36 acre. The land that was, transferred by the sale deed No.1-11 did also
belong to 'nal' class of land. If these two deeds are compared, even though, the
land is not very proximate but a realistic rate can be gathered. Since the said
land measuring .36 acre was sold at Rs.4,50,000/- the rate would come at Rs.5
lakh per kani. Looking at the position of the land it transpires that the acquired
land is comprised in the plots No. 725/3107/p, 726, 727/p, 1242/2609 of the
said Mouja. The distance and the advantage would be variable from location.
Thus, keeping due regard to the location of the land and the acceleration
of the rate in the rural areas at 10%, this court is of the view that if the land rate
is determined at Rs. 6 lakhs per kani that would be just and reasonable.
Accordingly, the land rate is decided at Rs. 6 lakhs per kani for the acquired
land. The compensation has to be calculated on the basis of the said rate. The
referring-claimants respondents would get the value of the land at Rs. 6 lakhs
per kani. Along with that, they would get the additional compensation at 12%
under section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium at the rate of
30%. It is further made clear that on the compensation, the referring-claimants
would get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of
taking possession and thereafter, meaning on expiry of one year, the interest
would be 15% till the payment is made. It is further made clear that the
solatium would carry interest from the date of taking possession till the
payment is made in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The entire
enhanced amount shall be paid within a period of 3(three) months from the date
when a copy of this judgment and decree shall be available to the appellant and
the respondents.
9. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. Draw the decree
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Send back the LCRs.
JUDGE
Saikat
