Tripura High Court
Agartala Municipal Corporation vs Niranjan Ghosh on 18 November, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP. No.117/2019
Agartala Municipal Corporation, Represented by Commissioner, Agartala
Municipal Corporation, having its office at Paradise Chowmuhoni, Agartala,
P.O. - Agartala, District-West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Niranjan Ghosh, S/o. Lt. Jogendra Ghosh, South Dhaleswar, Water
Supply Road, P.O. -Agartala College, Dist- West Tripura.
2. Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, having its office Akhaura
Road, Old Secretariat building, P.O.- Agartala, District-West Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
Along with
L.A. APP. No.119/2019
Agartala Municipal Corporation, Represented by Commissioner, Agartala
Municipal Corporation, having its office at Paradise Chowmuhoni, Agartala,
P.O. - Agartala, District-West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Niranjan Ghosh, S/o. Lt. Jogendra Ghosh, South Dhaleswar, Water
Supply Road, P.O. -Agartala College, Dist- West Tripura.
2. Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, having its office Akhaura
Road, Old Secretariat building, P.O.- Agartala, District-West Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. K. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate,
Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Date of hearing and judgment : 18th November, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Both these appeals arise in common background. They have
been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is
undisputed fact that the private respondent was the recorded owner of Hal
plot Nos.4300, 4298/P, 4307, 4306 and 4297/2272 of Mouja-Jogendranagar,
Tehshil-Jogendranagar which was acquired by the Land Acquisition
Collector for the present appellant Agartala Municipal Corporation on
11.07.2012. A total of 5 nos. of acquisition notices were issued to the private
respondent stating that his total land measuring 0.320 acres, i.e. (0.0100 +
0.1200 + 0.1350 + 0.0300 + 0.0300), in total measuring 16 gandas had been
acquired by the appellant-Corporation. It would be also relevant to note
herein that one kani equals 20 gandas and 2.5 kani equals 1 acre. The
acquired plot of land No.4297/2772 is a vitti (tilla) class of land. The
acquired plot No.4300/P is a tilla class of land. The acquired plot No.4298/P
is a tilla class of land and the acquired plot No.4307/P and 4306/P are also
tilla class of land. In the present two connected cases we are concerned with
plot No.4297/2772 and 4306/P totaling 0.04 acres.
3. Separate land acquisition proceedings were initiated for all the
five notifications against which references were also filed by the claimant-
respondent and appeals thereafter had also been carried before this Court. It
appears that L.A. Appeals No.117, 118, 119, 120 and 121 of 2019 were filed
by the appellant. Admittedly from the aforesaid five appeals, three appeals
namely L.A. Appeal Nos.118, 120 and 121 of 2019 have already been
disposed of affirming the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Judge.
Therefore, in the present case, we are dealing with L.A. Appeal Nos.117 and
119 of 2019. In the three connected L.A. Appeals it appears that the Hon'ble
Single Judge of this Court have already held that the L.A. Judge while
assessing the valuation of the land had made an estimate and the estimate
determined by the L.A. Judge at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per kani was
affirmed. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the private respondent
submits that since the other appeals filed by the Agartala Municipal
Corporation have been dismissed, the present appeals may similarly be
dismissed. However, he draws the attention of this Court to one factual error
which appears to have crept in to the orders/judgment being cited to the
effect that the claimant had failed to bring on evidence that the sale deeds
which were produced by it to try and establish the value of the land was
situated close to the vicinity of the acquired land is erroneous. Learned
counsel for the private respondent submits that the sale deeds which were
duly exhibited as Exhibit-1 & 2 and more importantly the said land was
purchased by the Agartala Municipal Corporation itself from the neighbour
of the land loser for construction of a water tank and the said valuation of
the land by the Agartala Municipal Corporation was @ Rs.80 lakhs per kani.
Admittedly, he fairly submits that no appeal has been preferred by the
private respondent in the matter but he submits that this document itself
could more than justify the determination made by the learned Land
Acquisition Judge in the present reference which has been challenged before
this Court. Therefore, for the reasons as noted hereinabove this Court
accepts the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the private
respondent and dismisses the appeals in view of the dismissal of other
appeals at the behest of the Agartala Municipal Corporation arising out of
the selfsame notifications.
4. With such observations and directions, the present appeals
stand dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount deposited by
Agartala Municipal Corporation including interest accrued, if any, in favour
of the private respondent in accordance with the decree.
5. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Send the lower court records forthwith.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
