Tripura High Court
Sri Subrata Mahalanabish vs The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-1) on 12 March, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP 96 OF 2019
Sri Subrata Mahalanabish,
S/o Sri Sunil Mahalanabish, resident of village Jangalia,
P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala, Tripura.
.... Appellant.
Vrs.
1. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-1), NF Railway,
Badharghat Railway Station, PS-Amtali,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquision Collecotr,
Agartala, West Tripura.
....Respondents.
Present:
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjit Debnath, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh De, Advocate.
Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
Argument heard & : 12.03.2021.
Judgment delivered on
Whether fit for
reporting : No
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Mr. Ranjit Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. A. De, learned standing counsel appearing for
the NF Railway and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the
LA Collector, West Tripura.
2. The instant land acquisition appeal is directed against the
judgment and award dated 30.04.2019, passed by learned LA Judge,
West Tripura, Agartala in Misc.(LA) 108/2014.
3. Briefly stated, by notification dated 24.06.2011 under a
reference No.F.9(7)-REV/ACQ/XIV/2011, the land in question was
acquired by the LA Collector, West Tripura under Section 4 of the LA
Act. The acquired land was recorded in Khatian No.2233, comprising of
Plot Nos. 567/8291/P,570/P, 564/P, 565, 566/P and 567/P.
4. Having receipt of notice of such notification, the land-
loosers appeared before the LA Collector to determine the rate of
compensation of the acquired land. Upon hearing the appellant, the LA
Collector assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
four lakhs) per kani. Being aggrieved of the said award, the land-loosers
prayed for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. Before the learned
LA judge, the land losers filed claim statements. The LA Collector as
well as the requiring department i.e. the NF Railway also filed counter
statement denying the claim of the claimants that the acquired land
accrued the value of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) per kani.
5. Learned LA Judge after exchange of pleadings, framed
issues. On the basis of issues, the parties appearing to the lis adduced
their respective evidences and produced certified copies of some
exemplar sale deeds which according to the appellant are in close
proximity to the acquired land of the appellant.
6. At the closure of recording evidence, the learned LA Judge
having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis
determined the market price of the land @ Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight
lakhs) per kani. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and award, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court
seeking further enhancement of compensation.
7. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the learned LA Judge determined the market price
of the acquired land on the basis of presumption. He did neither take into
account the exemplars deed produced by the appellant which were
marked as exhibits being proved as Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 and also taking
into consideration the factual aspects which would be evident from the
assessment note of the LA Collector where the LA Collector himself
after verification of the area came to a conclusion that the acquired land
is situated within half kilometre distance from Bishalgarh market. The
LA Collector in his assessment note had assessed the market price of the
Bastu/viti class of land @ Rs.22,00,000/- lakhs per kani.
8. I have gone through the assessment note. It transpires from
the said note that the LA Collector himself observed that - the important
locations such as Uttar Brajapur High School, VLW Centre, water
removal plant, market stalls & open market sheds are on the proposed
alignment. The market area is mainly comprised on the north bounded by
plot nos.373, 374 & 375 while outlying parts towards south by plot nos.
454 & 456. This area is being used for commercial and different official
purposes. So this block will deserve higher rate than that of the rest area
located on north & south of the market. This portion is identified as
Block No. "A". The northern part of the market area which is coherent
to sheet no. 1 of revenue village Krishna Kishore Nagar is identified as
Block "B-1" and southern part of the market area is as identified "B-2".
9. As I said earlier, the LA Collector assessed the market price
of 'A' Class of land @Rs.22,00,000/- per kani and Rs. 20,00,000/- per
kani for tilla and lunga class of land.
10. I have perused the judgment of the learned LA Judge. I find
learned LA Judge did not even look into the assessment note while
assessing the market price of the acquired land. The acquired land is
situated within Block 'B1' as assessed by the LA Collector. I am
surprised to note that while the market price of the land under Block 'A'
had been determined at Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani, how
the coherent land which is situated just at the northern side of 'Block-A'
can be determined only at Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. In my opinion, such
determination of market price of the acquired land is unreasonable and
arbitrary and not consistent with the law of the land. As I have already
observed that the acquired land is just adjacent to the land of 'Block-A',
in my opinion, the market price of the acquired land should be
determined at Rs.18,00,000/- per kani.
11. Accordingly, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to get
compensation out of acquired land @ Rs.18,00,000/- ( Rupees eighteen
lakhs) per kani. Needless to say, this award shall include all the statutory
benefits including interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The LA Collector is directed to re-calculate the compensation on the
basis of this judgment and award and pay the same to the appellant
within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
In the above terms, the appeal stands allowed.
Send back the LCRs.
JUDGE
