Tripura High Court
The Director (I & C) vs Smt. Ayesha Khatoon on 7 April, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP. No.09/2020
The Director (I & C), Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Government
of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Ayesha Khatoon, W/O. Late Samsu Miah of South Ramnagar, P.S.-
West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate,
Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Date of hearing and judgment : 7th April, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar
Sharma appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel Mr. D.C. Roy
for the private respondent No.1 and learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Collector.
2. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an award
dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West
Tripura Judicial District, Agartala arising out of case No. Misc. (L.A.) 05 of
2013 whereby the learned L.A. Judge came to a conclusion that the
valuation of the land acquired from the private respondent ought to be
computed @ `24,85,000 per kani.
3. Learned counsel for the State essentially contends that in the
fact situation the claimant never produced any sale deed to justify the value
of the land and on the contrary, the State had provided several exemplar
documents and none of which supported the conclusion arrived at by the
learned L.A. Judge. While the aforesaid statement made by the learned
counsel for the State appears to be correct, yet on perusal of the impugned
award it is clear that the learned L.A. Judge, in fact, placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by that Court in Misc. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 where the Court
had directed enhancement of the rate of the acquired land from `8,00,000
per kani to `24,85,000 per kani. The learned L.A. Judge extensively dealt
with the issues arising therefrom and also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in L.A. Appeal No.94 of 2013 and, therefore, concluded that although
the referring claimant did not produce the map of her acquired land, the O/P
side (State) did not adduce any evidence to satisfy the L.A. Judge regarding
determination of the rate of the acquired land. The acquired land admittedly
was situated near Akhaura Land Customs Station, i.e. near Indo-Bangladesh
border area and since the acquisition notice involving acquisition of land
also covered under judgment of the Court of L.A. Judge in Misc. (L.A.) 152
of 2010 was a common notification, therefore the L.A. Judge in my
considered view acted appropriately in placing reliance on the judgment of
that Court for the valuation of the land in question. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that even though the learned counsel for the State is
correct in stating that the claimant had not brought on record any sale deed
to justify his claim for enhancement of the land compensation, yet the
selfsame notification under which acquisition occurred and was considered
by this Court in Misc. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 and in the said case while the L.A.
Collector had determined the valuation of the land at `8,00,000 per kani, the
amount has been enhanced by L.A. Judge to `24,85,000 per kani. The L.A.
Judge in the present case was fully justified in placing reliance on the same.
4. Learned counsel for the State also argued that the Court did not
take into consideration the quality of the land involved. However, this
objection is found to be misplaced since the land concerned in the present
L.A. Appeal is classified as "Nal" and the land for which valuation was
given by the L.A. Court in the earlier Misc.(L.A.) 152 of 2010 was classified
as "Pukur". Both are waterborne land and the same terms can be used
synonymously.
5. The L.A. Appeal stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to
pursue their remedy as a consequence.
6. 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
