The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Sri Nepal Chandra Chakraborty And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 155 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 8




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                           L.A. App. No.15/2021

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway
                                                           ----Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
Sri Nepal Chandra Chakraborty and others
                                                         -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)                : Mr. Ashutosh De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)               : Mr. Subhash Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
                                  Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.

     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

                                   Order

09/02/2022

Heard learned counsel Mr. Ashutosh De appearing for the

appellant as well as learned counsel Mr. Subhash Bhattacharjee appearing

for the claimants (private respondents).

2. The present L.A. Appeal has been preferred challenging an

award dated 11.05.2020 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.1,

West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala in case No. Misc. (L.A.) 206 of

2014. The said case before the L.A. Judge was instituted on a reference

made by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala under Section 18 of the

L.A. Act, 1894 at the instance of the respondents-claimants. The learned

Land Acquisition Judge considered all the sale deeds obtained by the State

and in paragraph-6 came to the following finding:

"6) All the issues are taken up together for convenience of discussion and decision. Regarding maintainability of the proceeding, neither party raised any dispute and as it appears, the reference was duly made by L.A .Collector under section 18 of L.A. Act and therefore, the proceeding is well maintainable. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly. The claimant no.1, Nepal Chandra Chakraborty proved certified copy of Sale Deed no.1-351 dated 18.01.1994(Ext.1) wherein 3 gondas of chara class of land from plot no.9322ofmoujaBankimnagar was sold at Rs. 75,000/- i.e. @ Rs.5 lakh per kani. Chara class of land bears value a bit less than Nal class of land as it is inferior to Nal class of land. L.A. Collector proved one sale deed bearing no. 1-794 dated 28.1.1999 (Ext.B) wherein some lands were sold from Gandhigram mouja. Similarly, another deed bearing no.1- 5333 dated 8.6.1999 was also proved as Exbt.C wherein some lands were sold from Bishalgarh subdivision where the acquired land falls within Bankimnagar mouja of Jirania Subdivision.Thus, it appears that without any application of mind and just to abuse the process those deeds were proved. In Deed no. 1-5656 dated 29.10.1996 (Ext.D), a land area of 0.12 acre from plot nos. 7159 and 7167 of class Tilla (much inferior than Nal class) was sold at Rs.10,000/- i.e. @ Rs.33,000/- per kani. In Deed no. 1- 5661 dated 29.10.1996 (Ext.E), an area of 0.10 acre of class Tilla from plot no.6670

of mouja Bankimnagar was sold at Rs.8,000/- i.e. @Rs.32,000/- per kani. In Deed no.1-5536 dated 15.10.1996 (Ext.F), an area of 0.10 acre of land from plot nos.8071/10104 & 8071/10102 of class Bastu was sold at Rs.20,000/- i.e. @ Rs.80,000/-. But as per the counterstatement of L.A. Collector, while assessing value of the acquired land, he did not rely on any of said three deeds under Ext. D,E & F, rather he relied on deed no. 1-794 dated 9.2.1996 and deed no.1- 5333 dated 4.10.1996 (not Ext.C) and neither of these two deeds are proved into record. Therefore, to assess the value of acquired land, the sale deed as proved by the claimants under Ext.1 is being made basis of determination of compensation."

3. After discarding the evidence produced by the State for the

reasons as noted hereinabove he concluded as follows:

"7) As already discussed above, as per said deed no.1- 351dated18.01.1994 (Ext.1), plot no. 9322 of area 3 gandas of chara class was sold at Rs.75,000/- i.e. @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. Said chara class was of a bit inferior in quality than Nal class of land. However, as per boundary description of said land there was one road on its southern side but no map was submitted by claimant to show that the acquired land was a road side land and that it was closure to the land under Exbt.1. Thus, normal presumption will be that the acquired land was not a road side land and was situated at a considerable distance from the land under Ext.1. Considering that aspect some deduction is required to be made from the value of land

under Exbt.1. However, it is also fact that the acquired land was of a bit higher quality and the acquisition was made in the year 1999 i.e. after five years of execution of Exbt.1, so, meanwhile value of the land in that area has been increased during that period of five years. Considering all these aspects, to make a balance, no deduction is being made from the value of the deed under Exbt.1. Thus, the value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. In Misc.(LA) 187 of 2014 as referred by both the parties, similar award was passed. The claimants will also get other statutory benefits with the enhanced rate of compensation. All the issues are according decided in favour of the claimants."

4. Learned counsel Mr. Ashutosh De appearing for the appellant

strenuously argued that this case is covered by a judgment rendered by this

Court in L.A. Appeal No.97 of 2019 whereby Hon'ble Single Judge of this

Court by a judgment and order dated 02.06.2020 had concluded as follows:

"19. Next, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the observation of the learned LA Judge that it is very difficult task to determine the market price of the lands and there may be some arbitrariness and sometimes there may be some assumption and presumption.

20. True it is, that the market price of the lands in Tripura had been increasing day by day due to various developmental activities undertaken by the government. It is also equally true that there may be an increase of the rate of land @ 8% per

year. In the instant case, the first deed relied upon was executed in the year 1996 when it was found that the sale price of a deed was fetching a market price of Rs. 50,000/- per kani. Accordingly, applying the aforesaid settled principle, since the lands were acquired in the year 1999, the valuation of the lands should be around Rs. 75,000/- per kani considering the increase at the rate of 8% per year. Apart from that, I have already held that due to undertaking of several developmental activities, there was a trend of increased price of lands. Thus, on overall assessment, keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, the market price of the acquired lands would be justified if the value of the same is determined at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand) only per kani."

5. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant-Railway asserted that the land in question in the present

appeal is located close to the area, value of which was determined by this

Court in the aforesaid appeal.

6. Mr. Subhash Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants (private respondents), on the other hand, contended that the

judgment relied upon by the appellant cannot amount to determination of

the value of the land acquired since the Hon'ble High Court had determined

the value basically on approximation and based upon a sale deed of the year

1996. Learned counsel contends that in the case at hand the learned L.A.

Judge has placed his reliance upon Exhibit-1 Sale Deed which is of the year

1994. More importantly, he submits that the L.A. Judge had in detail dealt

with the circumstances that arose in the present case and had based his

judgment on the counter statement filed by the L.A. Collector while

assessing the value of the acquired land that he had not relied upon any of

the said three deeds under Exhibits-D, E and F, rather he had relied upon

sale deed No.1-794 dated 09.02.1996 and deed No.1-5333 dated 04.10.1996

but most importantly neither of these two deeds were proved into record in

course of the trial before the L.A. Judge. Consequently, the L.A. Judge

thereafter placed reliance on Exhibit-1, i.e. sale deed dated 18.01.1994.

Based on such contention, learned counsel Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that

the judgment relied upon by the appellant would have no application to the

present case.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

perused the records and in particular, the judgment impugned before this

Court in the present appeal of the L.A. Collector, it is seen therefrom that

the sale deed under Exhibit-1 dated 18.01.1994 was sold at the rate of

`5,00,000 per kani and the said land related to chara class of land which

was found to be inferior in quality than the Nal class of land which was the

subject matter of acquisition in the present case.

8. It appears that the learned L.A. Judge proceeded to determine

that although there was no evidence on record before it that the acquired

land was next to any road and, therefore, the value under Exhibit-1 ought to

have been reduced, yet taking into consideration the fact that the acquisition

notice under Section 4 of the L.A. Act had been issued in the year 1999, i.e.

after a period of 5 years from the sale deed which was duly exhibited came

to the conclusion that instead of increasing the value of the land since it is a

fact that prices of land have increased from year to year he set that off

against the deduction that was required to be made in view of the distance of

the land away from a road.

9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant in the present facts and circumstances of this case would have no

application to the present case and this Court finds that the learned L.A.

Judge has proceeded lawfully and rationally in determining the value of the

acquired land at `5,00,000 per kani. Therefore, this Court finds no basis or

ground to interfere with the said order and accordingly, the appeal stands

dismissed.

10. 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