Tripura High Court
Smt. Nantu Rani Majumder @ Pintu ... vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 5 December, 2022
Page - 1 of 14
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. No.01 of 2021
Smt. Nantu Rani Majumder @ Pintu Rani Majumder,
W/o late Dinabandhu Majumder, resident of Hrishyamukh, P.O Hrishyamukh, P.S
Belonia, Dist. South Tripura
----- Claimant Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia,
O/o the LA Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.
2. The Director of School Education,
Govt. of Tripura, O/o Director of School Education, Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799001
-----OP Respondent(s)
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Sri Debabrata Majumder,
Son of late Dinabandhu Majumder, resident of Hrishyamukh, P.O Hrishyamukh, P.S
Belonia, Dist. South Tripura
----- Claimant Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia,
O/o the LA Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.
2. The Director of School Education,
Govt. of Tripura, O/o Director of School Education, Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799001
-----OP Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 16th November, 2022.
Date of Pronouncement : 5th December, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The facts and law involved in both of the appeals being identical,
they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment.
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 2 of 14
[2] Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned advocate appearing for respondent
No.1 as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
[3] The present appeals have been filed by the original claimants
seeking to challenge the judgment and award dated 08.05.2019 passed by the
learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia (Learned LA Judge for short)
in LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 whereby the learned LA
Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the LA Collector for acquisition of
their land from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani along with other statutory
benefits.
[4] Aggrieved claimants have preferred these appeals claiming
compensation at the rate of Rs.80,00,000/- per kani.
[5] Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
appellants submits that the land in question was acquired for extension of the
existing playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school in Hrishyamukh mouja. According
to learned counsel, the school is situated in an ideal location having easy access to
the main roads and surrounded by commercial buildings and other institutions.
Moreover, considering the shape and utility of the land, it has been acquired for the
purpose of extension of the playground of the H.S. school. Counsel, therefore,
contends that the learned LA Judge should have considered the fact that the land is
of great potential value, inasmuch as, it is situated at an ideal location having main
roads on all sides and other amenities like proximity with health care centres,
banks, shops etc.
[6] Further contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellants
is that the assessment note of the LA Collector would indicate that several sale
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 3 of 14
transactions were considered for the acquired land. One of those sale transaction in
Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector is sale deed No.1-232/09 dated
11.02.2009 which represents the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani of a land situated
at a distance of only 100 meters away from the acquired land. Counsel contends
that since in the assessment note it is reflected that land at a distance of 100
meters from the acquired land is rated Rs.10,00,000/- per kani, the LA Collector
should not have taken a different course without justifying the same. In the course
of his submissions, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the
sale instances which have been examined by the government also include sale deed
No.1-1303 dated 19.09.2009 which is rated Rs.80,00,000/- per kani. Counsel
contends that the government did not consider those deeds on the ground that the
land of those deeds are far away from the acquired land but nowhere in the
assessment note, distance between those lands and the acquired land has been
mentioned. Counsel argues that the sale transaction representing the highest value
at the relevant time should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course. Counsel has argued that none of these
parameters were taken into consideration either by the LA Collector or by the
learned LA Judge and therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned LA Judge is
completely erroneous which should be set aside.
[7] Mr. Bhattacharjee, counsel of the appellants further submits that
since the land was in proper shape and well developed, it was acquired for
extension of school playground where the students would be able to play any
outdoor game without any difficulty or hazard. Counsel contends that since the
acquired land was a well developed land, the learned LA Judge should not have
made 66% deduction to the value of the land determined by him. Counsel contends
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 4 of 14
that since the acquired land is a fully developed land which has been acquired for
extension of the playground of an educational institution falls within the purview of
"no deduction" and as such the deduction made by the learned LA Judge is wholly
erroneous. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trishala Jain & Anr. vs.
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 wherein the Apex
Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 has observed as under on the point of deduction:
"41. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully
developed and has all essential amenities before acquisition,
for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no
additional expenditure for its development, falls under the
purview of cases of "no deduction". Furthermore, where the
evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the
compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have all
the features comparable to the proposed acquired land,
including that of size, is another category of cases where
principle of "no deduction" may be applied. These may be the
cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases
are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are
proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be
agricultural lands and/or semi or haphazardly developed
lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into
consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the
market value of the land in question.
42. This Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Tahsildar & Land
Acquisition Officer, [(1991) 4 SCC 506], stated that it is
permissible to take into account exemplars of even small
developed plots for determining the value of a large tract of
land acquired, if the latter is also fully developed with all the
facilities requiring little or no further development. In the
facts and circumstances of that case the Court felt that it was
not appropriate to resort to deduction of 1/3rd value of the
comparable sale instances as development charges."
[8] Counsel has also contended that the learned LA Judge did not
appreciate the fact that the LA Collector examined various bonafide sale
transactions proximate to the point of acquisition for determination of value of the
acquired land. In the assessment note, it has been clearly indicated that among the
several exemplars examined by the LA Collector, the highest of the exemplars is
deed No.1-1301 which is rated at Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani. Counsel contends that
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 5 of 14
since it was bonafide transaction, the LA Collector should have considered the
same. In support of his contention, counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Ors.
vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 wherein the Apex
Court has held as under:
"16. This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa, (2010)
13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this
Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (1969) 1 MLJ 45
(SC) and Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734 held in para 20 as under:
[Anjani Molu Desai case (2010) 13 SCC 710]
"20. The legal position is that even where there are
several exemplars with reference to similar lands,
usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona
fide transaction, will be considered."
Again, in para 23, it was held that "the averaging of the
prices under the two sale deeds was not justified."
17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with
reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the
highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide
transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the
land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is
entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality
is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered
into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near
about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be
only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different
transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the
transaction representing the highest value should be
preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances
justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an
average of various sale deeds placed before the
authority/court for fixing fair compensation."
[9] On the issue of reduction of the market value of the acquired land
by the learned LA Judge on the ground of development charges, Mr. Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel of the appellant submits that deduction of 66% of the value of the
land for development charges made by the learned LA Judge is not sustainable
since the learned LA Judge did not consider the parameters laid down in various
judicial decisions for such deduction. Counsel has relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reddy Veerana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2225 to nourish his contention that a land which is
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 6 of 14
fully developed, 66% deduction of the market value is not justifiable under any
circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held as under:
"28. Be as it may, it is uncontroverted from the material
available on record that, the scheduled piece of land was
allotted by NOIDA to respondent No. 7 in absence of formal
acquisition, whereafter, the said scheduled land was
developed in the line of commercial hub and even a mall was
constructed on it. Hence, in our considered opinion,
the quantum of deduction of development charges
should have been evaluated by High Court from the
contextual perspective of all the relevant factors, which
clearly has not been done in the instant case. Nevertheless, to
cure the anomaly, it is trite at this juncture to refer to the
doctrine enunciated by this Court in case of „Bhagwathula
Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer,
(1991) 4 SCC 506: (AIR 1992 SC 2298)‟, wherein while
dealing with the question of principle of deduction in the land
value, this Court held as follows -
"11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by
the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the
market value of the acquired land. In applying the
principle, it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It
is not the extent of the area covered under the
acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast
area there may be land which is fully developed having
all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If
smaller area within the large tract is already developed and
suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads,
drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the
principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of
the large tract acquired, may not be justified.
12. .....The land involved in these cases is of even level and
fit for construction without the necessity of levelling
or reclamation. The High Court has itself concluded on the
evidence that the lands covered by the acquisition are
located by the side of the National Highway and the
Southern Railway Staff Quarters with the town planning trust
road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already
developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the
land has potential value for being used as building sites.
Having found that the land is to be valued only as
building sites and having stated the advantageous
position in which the land in question lies though
forming part of the larger area, the High Court should
not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every
case that such deduction is to be allowed. Where the
acquired land is in the midst of already developed
land with amenities of roads, electricity etc., the
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 7 of 14
deduction in the value of the comparable land is not
warranted.
13. The proposition that large area of land cannot
possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots
are sold is not absolute proposition and in given
circumstances it would be permissible to take into account
the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger
tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of
being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are
used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no
requirement of further development, the principle of
deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not
warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in
these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on
the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and
other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in
such circumstances, it is possible to utilize the entire
area in question as house sites. In respect of the land
acquired for the road, the same advantages are
available, and it did not require any further
development. We, are, therefore, of the view that the High
Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction
and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs 10
per sq. yard to Rs 6.50 per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such
deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of
these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed."
29. Further, this Court in „Trishala Jain v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (AIR 2011 SC 2458) ‟,
while dealing with determination of compensation and
deduction of development charges held as under -
"44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated
principle that the acquired land has to be more or
less developed land as its developed surrounding areas,
with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for
the purpose for which it is acquired without any further
expenditure, before such land could be considered for
no deduction. Similarly, the sale instances even of smaller
plots could be considered for determining the market value of
a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless,
there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities
and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such
principles each case would have to be considered on its own
merits.
Further, this Court in „Kasturi and Ors. v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 : (AIR 2003 SC 202) ‟, while
dealing with various factual factors to be taken into
consideration while applying the cut in payment of
compensation towards developmental charges held as under
-
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 8 of 14
"7. ........However, in cases of some land where there
are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area
around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut
to be applied, as the developmental charges required may
be less on that account. There may be various factual
factors which may have to be taken into consideration
while applying the cut in payment of compensation
towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is
more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must
be remembered that there is difference between a
developed area and an area having potential value,
which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is
developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso
facto make every land situated in the area also developed to
be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast
tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development
purpose."
The aforesaid judgments postulate general factors that are to
be taken into consideration for deciding the quantum of
deduction of development charges. As iterated above, such
factors majorly include the nature of land to be acquired, the
extent of area to be acquired, the extent of development in
the adjoining land as well as land proposed to be acquired,
the commercial potentiality and so on. Therefore, deduction
of development charge in the instant case should have been
made while considering the said factors. However, it is made
clear that this observation is being made in peculiar facts of
the present case and not in general."
[10] Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel of the appellants, therefore,
urges the Court to set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned LA
Judge and enhance the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for
acquisition of their land in terms of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgments cited to supra.
[11] Counsel appearing for the LA Collector (respondent No.1) and the
State counsel representing respondent No.2 have supported the judgment and
award rendered by the learned LA Judge. According to learned counsel, learned LA
Judge having relied on the sale transaction representing the highest value has
determined the compensation payable to the claimant appellants at the rate of
Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and following the established principles of deduction, made
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 9 of 14
appropriate deductions on development charges of the acquired land. Counsel
contends that the impugned judgment is well founded and there is no ground to
interfere with the said judgment. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court for dismissing
the appeals.
[12] Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the
parties and perused the entire record.
[13] Claimant Smt. Nantu Rani Majumder who is the appellant in LA
App. No.01 of 2021 has examined herself as PW-1 before the trial court in LA (Ref.)
No.76 of 2017. It has been stated by her that 0.11 acres Nal class of land from CS
plot No.4143/6816 in Hrishyamukh mouja, Belonia sub-division has been acquired
from her for the purpose of extension of the playground of Hrishyamukh H.S.
school. She has further stated that in the course of hearing before the LA Collector,
she submitted several sale instances to show that at the relevant time, value of the
acquired land was much higher than the rate proposed by the LA Collector. She
claimed that the acquired land was inseparable from the existing playground of the
school and as per the valuation chart prepared by the District Administration, value
of the land at that time was Rs.70,00,000/- per kani. According to her, for 0.11
acres of land, she was entitled to Rs.19,25,000/- at the rate of Rs.70,00,000/- per
kani.
During her cross-examination, she produced the certified copy of
the maps of sheet No.6 and 4 which was marked as Exbt.1 and 2 respectively. The
valuation chart produced by her was marked as Exbt.3. The cross-examiner
suggested to her that compensation assessed by the LA Collector was adequate
which was denied by her.
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 10 of 14
[14] In the said LA(Ref.) No.76 of 2017 which has culminated into LA
App. No.01 of 2021, the respondents adduced the evidence of only 1 (one) DW
who is a Revenue Inspector in the office of the LA Collector. In his examination-in-
chief, he stated that pursuant to the requisition received from the Directorate of
School Education, land measuring 0.11 acres was acquired from the appellant for
extension of existing playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school. Appellant claimed
Rs.80,00,000/- per kani but the LA Collector determined compensation at the rate
of Rs.80,000/- per kani.
[15] In LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 which has culminated into LA App.
No.02 of 2021, appellant Debabrata Majumder gave almost same evidence as PW-
1. He stated that 0.43 acres of land classified as Nal from CS plot No.4144/3096
was acquired from him for the same purpose viz. for extension of the playground of
the Hrishyamukh H.S. school for which he was given compensation by the LA
Collector at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani. He claimed compensation at the rate
of Rs.70,00,000/- per kani and according to him, he would be entitled to
Rs.75,25,000/- for 0.43 acres of land.
During his cross-examination, he got the same documents admitted
into evidence as Exbt.1, Exbt.2 and Exbt.3.
[16] On behalf of the respondents, the same person appeared as DW-1
and gave verbatim evidence.
[17] The learned LA Judge took up 5 (five) references together including
LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 from which the present
appeals have arisen and by a common judgment and award dated 08.05.2019,
decided those appeals. Learned LA Judge relied on sale deed No.1-232/09 dated
11.02.2009 appearing in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector and
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 11 of 14
held that land of the said sale instance was proximate to the acquired land and the
said sale transaction represented the highest value. But, the learned LA Judge
deducted 66% from the price of the land towards development charges of the
acquired land and thereby reduced the amount to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani for the
acquired land and awarded compensation to the claimant appellants accordingly
along with other statutory benefits. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of learned LA Judge which reads as
under:
"12. The purpose of acquisition in this case is, however, quite
different from the above noted case law and in the instant case, land
was acquired for extension of existing play ground of Hrishyamukh H.S.
School. So, definitely the acquired land being Nal land as well as not far
away from the main road has got its own potentiality. From the
evidence on record, I find that the deed as mentioned in Sl.No.4 of the
assessment note was consulted by the L.A. Collector while determining
the compensation and the value of the lands in the deed was
Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. But finally the L.A. Collector assessed the
value of the Nal class of land as Rs.80,000/- per kani and @
Rs.1,12,000/- per kani. So, relying the decision in Chandrashekar (D)
by Lrs. And Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbargo & Anr., 2012 AIR
SCW 73 for the first component under the head of development I
consider deduction of 33% should be made. Likewise for the second
component under the head of development a further deduction of 33%
can additionally be made. So total deduction of (33 + 33) = 66% is
taken up here to calculate the compensation as the just and reasonable
one. In this case the deed No.1-232 dated 11-02-2009 as mentioned in
Sl. No.4, shows that the class of land is Nal and the rate per kani is
Rs.10,00,000/- and it is within 200 meters from the acquired land. The
acquired land is also of Nal class. So, the deed No.1-232 dated 11-02-
2009 as mentioned in Sl. No.4 being the highest exemplar and
executed prior to the notification cannot be ignored. Thus, I accept the
deed.
13. The lands of Deed No.1-232 as mentioned in Sl. No.4 of the
assessment note bear a value @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and it is the
highest exemplar deed of this case. So, if I deduct 66% thereof as
deduction then rate is reduced to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani which is thus
taken to be the value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition.
The claimants of these five cases are thus entitled to get compensation
@ Rs.3,40,000/- per kani. The referring claimants are thus entitled to
get all other statutory benefits and accordingly all the issues are
decided in favour of the referring claimants.
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 12 of 14
ORDER
14. Now, therefore, the references are allowed. The referring
claimants in all these cases are entitled to get enhanced compensation
@ Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty thousand) only per kani for
the acquired land. In addition the referring claimant are also entitled to
get 30% Solatium, and 12% further enhanced amount of
compensation upon the said land value computing from the date of
notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 upto the date of award
by Collector or the date of taking possession of land whichever is
earlier, upon the excess amount of land value as per section 23(2) and
section 23(1-A) of the Act respectively. The claimants shall further get
interest @9% per annum from the date of taking over possession for
one year and thereafter @15% per annum after expiry of said one year
till payment upon said excess amount of compensation as per section
28 of the Act. As per law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 5947, the interest will also be
counted on additional amount as awarded under section 23(1A) above
and upon the solatium awarded under section 23(2) of the Act. Each of
the claimant will also get Rs.1000/- as cost under section 27 of the Act.
The Opposite Party is liable to make the payment to the referring
claimants."
[18] It is true that even though the claimant appellants have claimed
that they produced several sale instances during the trial of the case, but none of
such sale instances has been admitted into evidence. But undisputedly, 9 (nine)
sale instances have been examined by the LA Collector for determining the
compensation of the acquired land. Those sale deeds represent the different value
ranging from Rs.16,000/- per kani to Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani. Admittedly, land of
sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 appearing in Sl. No.4 in the assessment
note is within 100 meters from the acquired land. The distance between the land of
the other sale instances and the acquired land is not known because there is no
reflection on this point in the assessment note. Neither the appellants nor the
respondents have adduced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the sale deed
No.1-232 of 2009 dated 11.02.2009 is the most reliable sale exemplar in terms of
its proximity to the acquired land. The said deed is also representing the highest
value. Therefore, there is no wrong in the judgment of the learned LA Judge,
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 13 of 14
inasmuch as, the learned LA Judge relied on the said sale exemplar. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshrnamrna Rao Bahadur, Ranee of
Vuyyur vs. the Collector of Madras reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC) held as
under:
".......where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied
on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value
should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances
justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an
average of two sale deeds should have taken in this case."
[19] But, insofar as the deductions made by the learned LA Judge
towards development charges of the acquired land is concerned, the learned LA
Judge erred in deducting 66% from the value of the land towards development
charge.
[20] Uncontrovertedly, the land of the claimant appellants has been
acquired for extension of the playground of the H.S. school. Level of the land is
equal to the level of the existing playground and the shape of the acquired land is
also same with the shape of the existing playground. It is not a case of either of the
parties that the acquired land has to be developed to bring it into shape in order to
make it suitable as a playground of the school. The land does not require any
levelling. It does not also require any expenditure for any other purpose like
creation of civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. Deduction can be applied
only on account of carrying out these development activities. Since, the acquired
land does not involve any expenditure for such development activities, it was
improper to deduct 66% from the value of the acquired land. Even then, some
expenditure is likely to be incurred to integrate the acquired land with the school
playground. Therefore, the deduction towards development charges of the acquired
land is reduced from 66% to 10%.
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
Page - 14 of 14
[21] Thus, the award passed by the learned LA Judge by the impugned
judgment is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani from which 10% deduction shall
be made towards development charges of the acquired land. The claimant
appellants shall be entitled to all other benefits awarded by the learned LA Judge.
[22] In terms of the above, the appeals stand disposed of. The
respondents are directed to deposit the entire decretal amount in terms of this
judgment with the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today
after deduction of the amount already paid by them, if any. On deposit of the
award, the Registry shall disburse the same to the appellants by transferring the
amount to their individual bank accounts on verification of their identity.
Interim order(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
JUDGE
Rudradeep
LA App. No.01 of 2021
LA App. No.02 of 2021
