Tripura High Court
Sri Sukumar Saha vs The Director on 1 March, 2021
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP 36 OF 2018
1. Sri Sukumar Saha,
son of late Guru Charan Saha, resident of Malaynagar, Agartala
P.S. Srinagar, District- West Tripura, present address- Haipathganj,
P.O. + P.S. Murshidabad, district- Murshidabad, West Bengal, PIN-742149
2. Smt. Archana Saha,
wife of late Santosh Ch. Saha, resident of Malaynagar, P.O. Renters Colony,
P.S. Srinagar, District- West Tripura
3. Sri Krishna Saha,
son of late Santosh Ch. Saha, resident of Malaynagar, P.O. Renters Colony,
P.S. Srinagar, District- West Tripura
4. Smt. Jhuma Saha,
daughter of late Santosh Ch. Saha, resident of Malaynagar,
P.O. Renters Colony, P.S. Srinagar, District- West Tripura
5. Smt. Soma Rani Saha (Lagardo),
wife of Sri Gilbart Lagardo, daughter of lt. Santosh Ch. Saha, resident of
SDO Chowmuhani, Nandanagar Road, Indranagar, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura
6. Smt. Pramila Saha (Deb),
wife of Sri Subhash Deb, D/o late Chaya Rani Saha and late Amulya Saha,
resident of Hapania, opposite Hospital, P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura
7. Sri Narayan Saha
son of late Chaya Rani Saha and late Amulya Saha, resident of Hapania,
opposite Hospital, P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
8. Sri Haridhan Saha
son of late Chaya Rani Saha and late Amulya Saha, resident of Hapania,
opposite Hospital, P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
9. Sri Manoranjan Saha
son of late Chaya Rani Saha and late Amulya Saha, resident of Hapania,
opposite Hospital, P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura
Petitioners no. 2 & 4 appointed Sri Krishna Saha, S/o lt. Santosh Chandra
Saha of Maloynagar, P.O. Renters Colony, P.S. Srinagar, West Tripura as
their lawful attorney vide registered Deed no. IV-497 dated 20.07.2012 and
petitioner No. 1 also appointed Sri Krishna Saha, S/o lt. Santosh Chandra
Saha of Maloynagar, P.O. Renters Colony, P.S. Srinagar, West Tripura as his
lawful attorney by Notarial Certificate Power of Attorney vide no.
1642/July/2012
... Ref. Claimant Appellants
VERSUS
1. The Director,
Higher Education, Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Land Acquisition Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala
----Respondent(s)
Page 2
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
Mr. UK Majumder, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery : 01.03.2021
of judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. P.
Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent- LA Collector.
2. By means of this appeal, the claimant-appellants have challenged the
judgment and award dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court
no.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. Misc.(LA) 210 of 2016.
3. Facts in brief are that, the L.A. Collector by issuing a notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act, had acquired 4.40 acres of land for the purpose of
construction of IGNOU Regional Centre. The acquired land falls within
Mouja- Anandanagar. The LA Collector issued notice to the land owners. The
appellants herein, being the land owners, after receipt of the notice appeared
before the LA Collector and claimed Rs. 60 lakh per kani for the acquired land.
The LA Collector while determining the market price of the acquired land had
considered 9 (nine) Sale Deeds, which are, as under:
Sl. Mouja Plot No Clasification Area Deed No. & Total value Value of land Distance
No of land in acre Date of land per kani from the
land
proposed
to be
acquired
1. Anandanagar, 544,545, Nal,Tilla, 0.05 1-1391 dt. Rs.25,000/- Rs.2,00,000/ 2030 ft.
Sheet No.1/P 546 Tilla 05/08/09
2. -Do- 35,36 Bastu, 0.06 1-769 dt. Rs.90,000/- Rs.6,00,000/ 640 ft
Bagan 12/05/10
3. -Do- 220,203, Bastu, 0.04 1-967, dt. Rs.3,50,000/ Rs.35,00,000/ On the
215 Chara, 10/06/10 proposed
Tilla land
4. -Do- 543,544, Nal, Nal, 0.05 1-1227, dt. Rs.30,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/- 2030 ft.
545 Tilla 15/07/10
5. -Do- 6, 7 Bastu, Tilla 0.04 1-2080, dt. Rs.1,00,000/ Rs.10,00,000/- 210 ft.
8/12/10
Page 3
4. After considering the aforesaid Sale Deeds, the LA Collector
assessed the market price in the manner as follows:
"Now considering the matter as elucidated above as well as present market
value, I therefore accord Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) per kani for Bastu,
Bastu (Nal), Viti (Lunga), Bastu (tilla) classes of land and Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees
seven lakh fifty thousand) per kani for Tilla & Lunga classes of land proposed
for acquisition which is in fact fair, rational and just and 10% more be added to
the value of the land due to escalation of market value. Thus, I determined
value of land Rs. 8,80,000/- per kani (Rupees eight lakh eighty thousand) for
Bastu, Viti (Lunga), Bastu (tilla), Bastu (Nal) classes of land and Rs. 8,25,000/-
(Rupees eight lakh twenty five thousand) for Tilla & Lunga classes of land
proposed for acquisition.
30% Solatium shall be added to the land Compensation as per provision of
section 23(2) of the L.A. Act.
Addl. Compensation @12% shall also be added to the land Compensation as
per provision under Section 23(1-A) of the L.A. Act.
Damage cost of trees, huts shall be assessed as per scheduled rate in force.
Establishment charge @10% of the total awarded amount shall be charged".
5. Being dissatisfied, the land owners, the appellants herein, have
sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. Having received the
records of the case, the learned LA Judge accepted the reference. The
appellants and the respondents including the Requiring Department
appeared before the LA Collector and contested the claim of the claimant-
appellants, here-in-after referred to as the claimants.
6. The claimants filed claim statement and the respondents filed
counter statements. Issues were framed after exchange of pleadings.
Evidences were adduced by the respective parties. Having heard the
learned counsel, the learned LA Judge accepted the highest Sale Deeds and
took into consideration the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 35 lakh
per kani. However, after such determination of the market price of the
acquired land, the learned LA Judge, deducted 50% out of development
cost.
7. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that considering the nature
of the acquired land, the learned LA Judge has committed serious error in
deducting 50% as development cost.
Page 4
8. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2, LA Collector, has vehemently defended the deduction @
50% as decided by learned LA Judge.
9. The rival submission of the parties has led this court to verify the
nature of the land. It is found that maximum lands are classified as bastu
and tilla. A small portion of land seems to be nal class of land. It is quite
natural that to develop the bastu class of land minimum amount is required
to be invested for its development. In my opinion, 50% deduction,
considering the nature of land, is unreasonable.
10. In my considered view, the deduction should be @15% instead of
50%. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned LA Judge deducting 50%
of the total value of the land is set aside and quashed.
11. Consequently, this court has not interfered with the findings of the
learned LA Judge that the market price of the land has been assessed at Rs.
35 lakh per kani. This court interfered only with the deduction of 50% for
development cost. It appears that considering 15% deduction, the total
amount comes to Rs. 29,75,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh seventy five
thousand). This amount shall accrue all other statutory benefits and the LA
Collector shall pay the entire amount including interest under Section 34 of
the LA Act within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this judgment.
12. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE
Saikat
