The Dy. Chief Engineer (Const. ... vs Shri Eshad Miah
2021 Latest Caselaw 381 Tri

                               Page 1 of 6


                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                         LA APP 110 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 Eshad Miah,
S/o Subas Ali, resident of
South Chandrapur, Udaipur, Police Station-Radhakishorepur,
Post office Radhakishorepur, PIN-799120,
District-Gomati, Tripura.

2. 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 10.07.2018 passed by learned Land Acquisition

Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Misc.(LA) 23 of 2016 awarding

compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.7,50,000/- 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 0.8 acres.

2, Being aggrieved of the assessment of valuation of the acquired

land, the land owner, the claimant-respondent No.1, herein, sought for

reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. During proceeding before the

court of learned LA Judge, the referring claimant filed his statement of

claim. The appellant as well as the LA Collector also filed their respective

counter statement denying the facts as alleged by the referring claimant.

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 claimant-respondent No.1 was entitled to pay compensation @

Rs.7,50,000/- per kani and accordingly, the LA Collector was directed to

pay the said compensation to the land owner, the respondent No.1 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, sale deed No.1-128/2010 and Exbt. 2, 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.7,50,000/-

per kani.

5. None appears for the LA Collector at the time of hearing. The

Claimant-respondent, the land owner, did not appear despite receipt of

notice served upon him.

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 substantial

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 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

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 respondent No.1, the referring claimant, were classified as

'Nal' and 'Chara' class of land.

8. Thereafter, I have perused the evidence of the claimant

respondent No.1. Nowhere in his examination-in-chief the claimant

respondent has stated that his land is situated in close proximity of the

exemplar deeds which he has brought on record. I reiterate that the

acquired land is absolutely a 'Nal' class of land. More so, the claimant

respondent has produced a map [Exbt.3/1 to 3/3] but from this map it is not

clear as to how the acquired land was similar to those of the lands under

Exbt.1 and Exbt. 2. The lands of Exbt. 1 and Exbt. 2 are not nearer to the

acquired land. The LA Collector while assessing the valuation of the

acquired land had determined the market price @ Rs.2,00,000/- 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.25,00,000/- per kani. The

classes of lands are different than that of exemplar sale deeds-- 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 is a larger piece of land

than the lands of the said two sale instances. In this case, nature of

exemplar deed (Exbt.1) is similar with the acquired land, but the land under

Exbt.1 is situated far away from the acquired land. Moreover, position and

potentiality of the land under Exbt.1 is much higher than the acquired land.

Further, as I said earlier, to develop 'Nal' class of land the requiring

department had 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 70% which appears to be

appropriate.

9. In my opinion, there is nothing to interfere with the award

made by the learned LA Judge.

10. In the above backdrop, the instant appeal deserves to be

dismissed being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the judgment and award

dated 10.07.2018, passed by the learned LA Judge in Misc.(LA) 23 of 2016

stands dismissed.

Send down the L.C.Rs.

JUDGE