Tripura High Court
The Dy. Chief Engineer (Const. ... vs Shri Biswajit Debnath on 22 March, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP 114 OF 2019
The Dy. Chief Engineer (Const. No.1), N.F. Railway,
Office at South Badharghat, Agartala, Post Office-A.D.Nagar,
PIN-799003, Police Station-A.D.Nagar, District-West Tripura.
.... Appellant.
Vrs.
1. Shri Biswajit Debnath,
2. Shri Ranjit Debnath,
Both are sons of Lt. Debendra Debnath.
3.Smti. Sadhana Debnath (Majumder)
W/o Shri Manmohan Majumder
4.Smt. Basana Debnath,
W/o Sridam Debnath.
5.Smt. Kalpana Debnath,
W/o Lt. Sukumar Debnath.
6.Smti. Anima Debnath,
W/o Shri Arun Debnath.
7.Smti. Rina Debnath(Marak)
W/o Shri Sushanta Marak
All are residents of South Chandrapur, Udaipur, Police Station-
Radhakishorepur, Post office Radhakishorepur, PIN-799120,
District-Gomati, Tripura.
8. The Land Acquisition Collector,
Gomati District, Tripura.
.... Respondents.
Present:
For the appellant(s) : Ms. Asmita Banik, Advocate.
For the respondents : None.
Argument heard & : 22.03.2021
Judgment delivered on
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order(Oral)
The present land acquisition appeal has been filed by the
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), NF Railway challenging the
judgment and award dated 20.01.2018 passed by learned Land Acquisition
Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Misc.(LA) 49 of 2016 awarding
compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. The land in
question was acquired vide notification dated 26.10.2010 under Section 4
of the LA Act and declaration dated 29.11.2010 under Section 6 of the LA
Act. The acquired land was 'Nal' class of land measuring 0.35 acres.
2, Being aggrieved of the assessment of valuation of the acquired
land, the land owners, the claimant-respondents herein, sought for
reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. During proceeding before the
court of learned LA Judge, the referring claimants filed their statements of
claim. The appellant as well as the LA Collector also filed their respective
counter statement denying the facts as alleged by the referring claimants.
After exchange of pleadings, the learned LA Judge framed issues,
evidences were recorded. At the closure of recording evidence, learned LA
Judge having heard the learned counsels of the parties and on perusal of the
exemplar sale deeds and other documents came to a finding that the
referring claimants were entitled to pay compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/-
per kani and accordingly, the LA Collector was directed to pay the said
compensation to the land owners, the claimant-respoondents herein.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said determination
of valuation of the acquired land, the appellant, the NF Railway
(Construction) has preferred the instant appeal.
4. Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the sale deeds as considered by the learned LA Judge are not
relevant in any manner whatsoever in deciding the market price of the
acquired land. According to Ms. Banik, learned counsel, the exemplar sale
deeds [Exbt.1(a), sale deed No.1-128/2010 and Exbt. 2(b), sale deed No.
258/2010] comprises small pieces of land and classes of land are classified
as 'Nal', and 'Chara' but the land in question of the instant appeal is a 'Nal'
Class of land. Ms. Banik, learned counsel submits that the Exbt.1, sale deed
No.1-128/2010 has been executed between two full blooded brothers and
according to her, this sale exemplar is a collusive one. More so, the
appellant required to spend substantial amount for development of 'Nal'
class of land which is much higher than what is required for developing the
'Viti'/'Tilla' and 'Bastu' classes of land. Ms. Banik, learned counsel
further submits that the acquired land was of no use at the time of
acquisition and it had no importance or potentiality to fetch higher market
price as assessed by the learned LA Judge @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani.
5. None appears for the LA Collector at the time of hearing. The
claimant-respondents, the land owners, did not appear despite receipt of
notices served upon them.
6. I have perused the judgment of the learned LA Judge and
considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. There is no
doubt that to determine the market price of a land acquired by the
Government, the highest exemplar deed has to be taken into consideration.
However, it is equally settled that the land of such exemplar deed must be
of the same nature and character which, the learned LA Judge has failed to
consider. Moreover, the small piece of land should not always be
considered to determine the market price of a larger piece of land. In the
instant case, the LA Collector acquired vast quantity of land for the purpose
of construction of railway line for the interest of the people of the State.
The requiring department, the appellant herein, had to incur huge expenses
to develop different classes of land for laying the railway tracks. On careful
scrutiny of the sale deeds as brought on record by the referring claimant,
respondent No.1, it transpires that Exbt.1(a) was executed on 18.01.2010
wherein the valuation of 0.04 acres of 'Nal' class of land under South
Chandrapur Mouja was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- per kani and Exbt.2(b)
wherein the 'Chara' class of land has been fixed at Rs.20,00.000/- per kani.
7. Thus, it is apparent that all the sale deeds that have been relied
upon by the claimant-respondents, were classified as 'Nal' and 'Chara'
class of land.
8. Thereafter, I have perused the evidence of the claimant
respondent No.1. Nowhere in the examination-in-chief the claimant
respondents have stated that their land is situated in close proximity of the
exemplar deeds which he has brought on record. I reiterate that the
acquired land is a 'Nal' class of land. More so, the claimant respondent has
produced a map [Exbt.2(a) and 2(b)] but from this map it is not clear that
how the acquired land was similar to those of the lands under Exbt.1(a) and
Exbt. 2(b). The lands of Exbt. 1(a) and Exbt. 2(b) are not nearer to the
acquired land. The LA Collector while assessing the valuation of the
acquired land had determined the market price @ Rs.3,00,000/- per kani on
the basis of valuation chart prepared by the Government and other sale
deeds. Learned LA Judge has relied upon the lands of sale deeds i.e. 1-
128/2010 & 258/2010 wherein the lands were transacted @ Rs.25,00,000/-
and Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani. Learned LA Judge, consequently, on average
fixed the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. The
classes of lands under the exemplar sale deeds are different to each other--
one is 'Nal' class of land and the other is 'Chara' class of land. Here the
acquired land is 'Nal' class of land. The lands under the said two sale deeds
comprise small pieces of land whereas the acquired land consists of larger
area than the lands of the said two sale instances. In this case, nature of
exemplar deed [Exbt.1(a)] is similar with the acquired land, but the land
under Exbt.1(a) is situated far away from the acquired land. Moreover,
importance and potentiality of the land under Exbt.1(a) is much higher than
the acquired land. Further, as I said earlier, to develop 'Nal' class of land
the requiring department has to incur more expenses and for that purpose, a
reasonable deduction has to be made. The learned LA Judge while
assessing the market price of the acquired land has deducted 50% which
appears to be reasonable. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment
and award of learned LA Judge. Accordingly, the judgment and award as
passed by the learned LA Judge is affirmed.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-requiring
department is found to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal stands
dismissed.
Send down the L.C.Rs.
JUDGE
