The In-Charge vs Shri Sailesh Majumder And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 24 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 5




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                       LA APP No.28 of 2020

The In-charge, HR-IR ONGC Ltd.
                                                      ......Appellant(s)
                                 VERSUS
Shri Sailesh Majumder and others
                                                     ......Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Advocate, Ms. S. Debnath, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 07/01/2022

In the present appeal the appellant-ONGC has sought to

challenge order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition

Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in Case No. Misc (L.A) 08 of 2014

enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector

vide order dated 18.08.2012 passed in L.A Case No.8/SNM/06.

Learned counsel for the appellant herein submitted that the

learned appellate court had no foundation to increase the awarded sum in

favour of the claimants. Further, he submitted that neither the LA

Collector nor the LA Judge ought to have placed any reliance on

document produced by the claimants i.e. [Exbt.1] which was found to be

the exemplar document for the purpose of determining the amount of

compensation on the ground that the land involved in the sale deed

[Exbt.1] and the land involved in the acquisition were not identical.

Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon two judgments

passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in LA APP No.131 of 2019

and LA APP No.134 of 2019 dated 04.02.2021 on the basis of which this

Court in LA APP No.134 of 2019 concluded as follows :

"In the instant case, claimants have failed to justify that their land is situated in close proximity of the exemplar land as relied upon by the learned L.A. Judge and it is at a distance of 6 KMs. away. So, there should be some deduction in regard to assessment of market price and in my opinion, the learned L.A. has committed an error to rely upon the Exbt.1, exemplar deed to assess the valuation of the acquired land. By applying the principle of guess work, I determine the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per kani instead of Rs.4,39,200/-."

In view of the aforesaid submissions made, the learned

counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents submitted that the two

judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant herein

were not the cases similar to that of the present appeal inasmuch as in

those cases the appellant had participated in the proceedings before the

LA Collector as well as the LA Judge and had led evidence and the LA

Collector had determined the value of the compensation for the land in

question. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the

present case, the appellant has not participated in the proceedings nor led

any evidence and consequently the said judgments ought not to be made

applicable to the present case. As an alternative argument, it is contended

by the learned counsel for the respondents that the determination made by

the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid two cases is based

purely on guesswork without there being any basis for reduction of the

valuation from Rs.4,39,200/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per kani.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

perusing the impugned orders and judgments relied upon by the

appellant, I find that in the absence of any evidence being led to the

contrary by the appellant the assertion made on behalf of the appellant

that the sale deed under [Exbt.1] could not be relied upon by the LA

Collector nor the LA Judge, cannot be entertained although it is claimed

by the appellant that the land is not identical yet the onus was on the

appellant to bring on record evidence to establish the said fact. In the

absence of any evidence to the contrary such contention cannot be

interfered in the present appeal.

Further, I find from the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the

Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in LA APP No.139 of 2019 that

though the Hon'ble Single Judge reduced the value of the land from

Rs.4,39,200/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per kani yet in paragraph 16 also took note

of the fact that unfortunately the claimants did not prefer any appeal in

the instant case challenging 70% deduction as developmental charges, the

Court could not interfere with the finding and hence in the absence of any

appeal no relief could be granted to the claimant-respondents.

This Court has taken the same into consideration simply to

highlight the fact that while the Hon'ble Single Judge prima facie opined

that the deduction of 70% as developmental charges was not appropriate

in the said case. In other words, less percentage of developmental charges

should have been made yet the learned Judge had gone ahead and reduced

the amount determined by the LA Judge by a sum of Rs.4,39,200/-. In the

present case at hand, this Court finds that the said judgments would not

be applicable to the facts of the present case and similarly though it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that the

deduction was on the higher side and the claimants should have been

entitled to higher compensation yet in the absence of filing of an appeal

learned counsel for the respondents-claimants reiterated his submission

that the determination of compensation made by the Land Acquisition

Judge should be upheld and not interfered with at the very lis.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have applied

my consideration to all the submissions advanced, this Court is left with

no other alternative other than direct dismissal of the present appeal

specifically on the ground that the appellant not having participated nor

having led any evidence before the LA Collector and/or before the LA

Judge cannot be permitted to raise such objections bereft of any evidence

in support of the contentions advanced by them.

Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to consider the

appeal and direct dismissal of the same. The Registrar General is directed

to release the amount kept in fixed deposit pursuant to directions of this

Court in favour of the claimants-respondents in accordance with the

affidavits submitted regarding their share holding along with accrued

interest thereon within a period of fortnight from today upon filing of

such application. The claimant-respondents are at liberty to prosecute

their execution case for the balance amount. This Court further directs in

order to bring conclusion to the matter, balance amount of awarded

amount be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court by the

appellant within a period of six weeks from today. Similarly on such

amount being deposited, the claimant-respondents shall be at liberty to

seek withdrawal of the same within a further two weeks therefrom from

the Registrar General of this Court.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Dipesh