Tripura High Court
The Assistant Transport ... vs Sri Sukumar Rudrapal & Others on 18 August, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. No.35 of 2020
The Assistant Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Agartala
.........Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sukumar Rudrapal & others
.........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate,
Mr. R. Paul, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
18/08/2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the directions issued by
the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura in Case No. Misc (LA)
112 of 2014 dated 27.07.2018 enhancing the market value of the land
acquired from the private respondents.
3. Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that
the claimant had placed reliance on Exbt-1 and Exbt-2. While dealing with
the said exhibits, the Land Acquisition Judge held as follows in paragraph 7
of the impugned judgment :
"Considering all the above points the sale deed referred by the claimanst
can not be considered as comparable sale deeds in this case."
In spite of having arrived at such a conclusion, he directs enhancement of
compensation from Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per kani to
Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) per kani. It is, therefore, submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that there is no foundation or basis on
arriving at such a huge figure.
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand,
contended that although the exhibits produced by the claimants as Exbt-1
and Exbt-2 were not of similar nature of the land held by the claimants
which was acquired, yet they are comparable. The learned Land Acquisition
Judge reduced the value from the sale deed amount substantially and instead
of arriving at a figure of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakh) per kani,
reduced the same to Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) per kani.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that
the matter should be remanded back to the court of the learned Land
Acquisition Judge, West Tripura for further opportunity to both the parties
i.e. the appellant as well as to the private respondents to lead further
evidence, if any, to substantiate and to establish the market value of the land
at the time of its acquisition as well as to lead evidence recording the
location of the exemplar land with the land acquired in order to assist the
learned Land Acquisition Judge to arrive at a fair market value.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order has been set aside. The
matter stands remanded back to the learned Land Acquisition Judge who
shall afford opportunity to both sides to lead any additional evidence, if any,
and since the matter is relating to an acquisition of the year 2006, the
learned Land Acquisition Judge shall do well to dispose of the matter within
a period of 6(six) months from the date of production of a copy of this order
before the court below. Parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of
the matter afresh.
7. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove
which would be appropriate also for the Land Acquisition Judge to take into
consideration the parties of the acquisition itself. The matter may be
considered afresh without, in any manner, being prejudiced by any
observation made in this judgment except to the extent of indicating that
whatever being the value determined must have some foundation on facts.
It would be appropriate also for the Land Acquisition Judge to take into
consideration the purpose of the acquisition itself.
8. Registry of this Court is directed to remit the record, if any, to
the court of the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, immediately.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pijush
