In-Charge vs Sri Arun Debnath And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 743 Tri

                                Page 1 of 4




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                          L.A. App. No.45/2020

In-Charge, HR-ER, ONGC Limited
                                                         ----Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
Sri Arun Debnath and others
                                                         -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)               : Mr. R. Dasgupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)              : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
                                 Mr. P.S. Roy, Advocate.

   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

                                  Order
05/08/2022

Heard Mr. R. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the appellant-

ONGC. Also heard Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the

respondents No.1(A) & 1(B)-claimants as well as Mr. P.S. Roy, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-L.A. Collector.

Learned counsel for the appellant-ONGC has sought to

challenge an award dated 30.05.2019 passed in Misc.(L.A.) No.07 of 2014

by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura

determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,39,200/- (rupees

four lacs thirty nine thousand two hundred) per kani. Admittedly, the

claimant-respondents had an area of land measuring 0.16 acres of 'Nal' class

under Khatian No.744, Hal Plot No.1622 under Mouja-Khedabari, Sheet

No.3 which was the subject matter of acquisition. Admittedly, the

acquisition took place on 25.03.2006 vide notification under Section 4 of the

L.A. Act and declaration was made on 11.05.2006 under Section 6 of the

L.A. Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant-ONGC placed reliance upon

the assessment note prepared before the determination was made by the

L.A. Collector and he, inter alia, contended that the said determination

ought to have been accepted by the learned L.A. Judge. In course of the

proceeding before the learned L.A. Judge, the claimants placed reliance on

Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, i.e. two separate sale deeds and without entering

into further discussion on this issue, Exhibit-1 dated 16.03.2006 was relied

upon and termed as the exemplar document by the L.A. Judge. Admittedly,

Exhibit-1 is dated 16.03.2006, i.e. a few days prior to the notification under

Section 4 of the L.A. Act. In terms of that, although the sale was for a

consideration of Rs.1,09,800/-, the rate derived therefrom was

Rs.14,00,000/- plus per kani. The learned L.A. Judge took into account the

fact that the land where the exemplar document was produced was located

one kilometer away from the site of the acquired land reduced its value by

70% and arrived at fair market value of Rs.4,39,200/- per kani. There is no

dispute that the category of land owned by the claimant-respondent and the

category of land covered under the exemplar Exhibit-1 dated 16.03.2006 is

similar.

Learned counsel for the appellant-ONGC placed reliance on

two judgments rendered by this Court in L.A. Appeal No.131 of 2019 [Oil

& Natural Gas Corporation Limited vrs. Subiya Khatun & another] and

L.A. Appeal No.134 of 2019 [Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vrs.

Sri Bhabatosh Debnath & others]. In both these judgments, learned Single

Judge of this Court determined the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.4,00,000/- per kani instead of Rs.4,39,200/- per kani. What is most

important herein to note that in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the

appellant, the learned Single Judge of this Court came to a finding that the

exemplar land was located 5/6 Kms. away from the land covered under the

acquisition and in the present case, admittedly the exemplar under Exhibit-1

is located merely 1 Km. away.

So, based on this factual difference, this Court is of the

considered view that the determination made in the judgments cited by the

learned counsel for the appellant cannot apply and on considering the fact

that the claimant-respondents were the owners of only 0.16 acres of land

which after acquisition has rendered the claimant-respondents landless,

refuses to interfere in any manner in the present appeal and accordingly,

affirm the award passed by the learned L.A. Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

entire decretal amount has been deposited in the Registry, if any, and the

respondents are entitled to withdraw the entire sum along with accrued

interest thereon. If any additional payment is required to be made, the

respondents are at liberty to seek execution after adjusting the amount, if

any, collected from the Registry of this Court.

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