Tripura High Court
In-Charge vs Sri Nirmal Bhowmik And Another on 5 August, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. App. No.46/2020
In-Charge, HR-IR, ONGC Limited
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Nirmal Bhowmik and another
-----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
respondent No.1-claimant 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 20.05.2019 passed in Misc.(L.A.) No.11 of 2014
by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura
determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees
four lacs) per kani. Admittedly, the claimant-respondents had an area of
land measuring 0.38 acres of 'Longa' class under Khatian No.197/2 & 3,
Revisional Plot Nos.1599, 1600 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 claimant placed reliance on
Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, i.e. two separate sale deeds and without entering
into further discussion on this issue, Exhibit-2 dated 16.03.2006 was relied
upon and termed as the exemplar document by the L.A. Judge. Admittedly,
Exhibit-2 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 and
arrived at fair market value of Rs.4,00,000/- 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-2 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 and in the present case at hand, learned L.A. Judge
also determined the value of the acquired land at Rs.4,00,000/- 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-2 is located merely 1 Km. away.
So, based on this factual similarity and situation, this Court is
of the considered view that the determination made in the judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the appellant would apply and on considering the
fact that the claimant-respondent was the owner of only 0.38 acres of land
which after acquisition has rendered the claimant-respondent 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
