Agartala Municipal Corporation vs Smt. Biva Rani Ghosh
2021 Latest Caselaw 413 Tri

              Page 1 of 3




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                             LA APP 121 OF 2019
     Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     represented by the Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     having its office at Paradise Chowmuhani, Agartala,
     P.O. Agartala, District - West Tripura
                                                             ----Appellant(s)
                   VERSUS
  1. Smt. Biva Rani Ghosh,
  wife of Sri Niranjan Ghosh, resident of South Dhaleswar, Water Supply road,
  P.O. Agartala College, District- West Tripura
  2. The Land Acquisition Collector,
  West Tripura, having its office at Akhaura Road, Old Secretariat Building,
  P.O. Agartala, District- West Tripura
                                                      ----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s)                  :     Mr. TD Majumder, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. T. Halam, Advocate
For Respondent(s)                 :      Mr. GS Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery :             25.03.2021
of judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting         :      Yes / No

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                          JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. TD Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Halam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. GS Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.

2. A small piece of land measuring 0.1900 acres was acquired by the LA Collector in the year 2012 by issuing notification under Section 4 of the LA Act for construction of ground water treatment plant and overhead tank at Jogendranagar. The LA Collector determined the compensation considering the market price of the land at Rs. 7,50,000/- per kani. The appellant i.e. the referring claimant sought for reference. Claim statement and counter statements were submitted by the respective parties before the learned LA Judge. The learned LA Judge having considered the evidences led by the respective parties and the Sale Deeds produced by the parties

had assessed the valuation the acquired land at Rs. 30 lakh per kani vide judgment and award dated 24.01.2019 in Misc (LA) 157 of 2014. The appellant i.e. Agartala Municipal Corporation being dissatisfied with the said judgment and award has preferred the instant appeal.

3. Mr. TD Majumder, learned senior counsel challenging the award has submitted that the learned LA Judge had assessed the valuation of the acquired land considering the market price at Rs. 30 lakh per kani is based on no evidence. According to Mr. Datta Majumder, the learned LA Judge himself discarded the exemplar Deeds as produced by the referring claimants during the proceeding, but, without any material, the learned LA Judge had enhanced the rate of compensation considering the valuation of the land at Rs. 30 lakh per kani.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents i.e. the land losers has submitted that the award of the learned LA Judge though is on lower side and he did not challenge the award, but, there is no scope to interfere with the award as passed by the learned LA Judge.

5. The rival submission of the learned counsel leads me to go through the evidences on record led by the parties as well as the findings returned by the learned LA Judge.

6. I have noticed that at para 5 of the examination-in-chief, PW-1, the owner of the land has stated that his land is situated in close vicinity of the comparable Sale Deeds, he produced before the learned court. It valued at Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. Moreso, he has stated that so many establishments like Agartala Railway Station, Jogendranagar Bus-stand etc. are situated within the close vicinity of the acquired land.

7. Admitted fact is that the acquired land is classified as tilla class of land. It was the homestead of the referring claimant. The referring claimant demanded the value of the land at Rs. 80 lakh per kani.

8. I have noticed the evidences led by the LA Collector. It is found that the LA Collector in their evidence has not made any direct statement controverting the statement of the referring claimant that his land is situated in close vicinity of the exemplar Sale Deed.

9. True it is, that no sketch map was produced by the referring claimant to find out the location of the respective land i.e. the acquired land and the land of the exemplar Deed. It is settled law that when evidence is not clear regarding location of the land and the distance between the acquired land and the land of the exemplar Deed, the court can undertake some guess work to determine the market price of the land.

10. The learned LA Judge while assessing the valuation of the land has made some guess work and on the basis of such guess work, the market price of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 30 lakh per kani. Moreso, according to this Court, the acquired land is not far away from the Agartala city, and Jogendranagar Railway Station is situated at a small distance from the acquired land. Naturally, the acquired land was a valuable property of the respondent-claimant. As such, I am of the opinion that the learned LA Judge has not committed any error in assessing the valuation of the land at Rs. 30 lakh per kani on the basis of overall consideration of the evidences and materials on record to be reinforced by guess work.

10. In the result, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

Stay order(s), if any, also stands vacated.

Send down the L.C.Rs.

JUDGE

Saikat