High Court Of Tripura vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 350 Tri

                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                        LA App 27/2020
                           PRESENT
For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. AD Deb, Advocate
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 16/03/2021 Heard Mr. AK Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 -LA Collector, Sepahijala. None appears for the respondent no.1.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned LA Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in case No. Misc. (LA) 94 of 2014 wherein the learned LA Judge had taken into consideration the market value of the price of Rs. 93,57,120/- per kani. However, the learned LA Judge has deducted 70% out of development cost from the market price, as determined by the LA Collector.

The grievance of the appellant is that the learned LA Judge has committed serious error both on fact as well as in law in deducting 70% as development cost.

Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that the LA Collector after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances and the distance of the acquired land from that of the land under Exhibit '2' as well as the class and character of the land had deducted 70% out of development cost considering the market price of the land at Rs. 93,57,120/- per kani.

I have perused the judgment and also considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In the judgment, the learned LA Judge had noticed that Exhibit '2', the sale exemplar which was relied upon by the claimant-appellant is far away from the acquired land. Moreover, the land belonging to Exhibit '2' is a small piece of land and cannot be compared with vast area of land. The learned LA Judge has also observed that the acquired land is a tilla class of land and the sale exemplar, as relied upon by the claimant- appellant is bastu class of land and adjacent to the road and other important places. As such, according to learned LA Judge the claimant- appellant is not entitled to get the same market price as that of the exemplar deed under Exhibit '2'.

In my opinion, though it is settled law that considering the nature and character of the land, the percentage of deduction can vary between 20% to 75% [Subh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444]. The learned LA Judge has observed that it is a tilla class of land and for that matter he has deducted 70% out of development cost of the acquired land which appears to be unreasonable to this court.

To convert a tilla class of land to a plain land will fetch lesser cost and expense than to develop a lunga or nal class of land. Tilla land can be converted into plain land only by way of cutting the upper soil and such soil can be re-used to fill up the nal or lunga class of land. As such, in my opinion, if deduction is made at 40% out of development cost then justice would be rendered to the claimant-appellant.

Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned LA Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in case No. Misc. (LA) 94 of 2014 is modified to the extent that there would be 40% deduction out of development cost instead of 70% deduction and the LA Collector shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimant-land losser deducting 40% from the rate of compensation which was determined by the learned LA Judge @Rs. 93,57,120/- per kani.

The instant appeal stands allowed and thus disposed of.

JUDGE Saikat