Smti. Kanchan Rani Debnath vs The Executive Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 263 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 10




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                          L.A. APP. No.129/2019

Smti. Kanchan Rani Debnath, W/O. Late Murari Mohan Debnath, Resident
of Nalgaria, Ranir Bazar, P.O.-Ranir Bazar, P.S.-Ranir Bazar, District-West
Tripura.
                                                          ----Appellant(s)
                                     Versus

1. The Executive Officer, Ranir Bazar Nagar Panchayet, Ranir Bazar, West
Tripura, PIN-799035.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, PIN-799001.
                                                         -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Ankita Pal, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A., Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate, Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

Date of hearing and judgment : 5th March, 2022.

      Whether fit for reporting         : YES.


                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard learned senior counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by

learned counsel Ms. Ankita Pal appearing for the appellant and learned

Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee assisted by learned

counsel Mr. S. Saha for the respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel Mr.

P. Gautam appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking to

challenge a judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed by the learned Land

Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. (L.A.)-169 of

2011 whereby the learned L.A. Judge rejected the reference made by the

L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation determined by the L.A. Collector.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in support of his

claim that the land extending 0.20 acres acquired from the appellant ought to

have been valued at `80,00,000 (rupees eighty lakh) per kani and not

`3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) per kani as determined by the L.A. Collector

and as accepted by the learned L.A. Judge in reference.

4. The entire contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that in course of the proceedings before the learned L.A. Judge

the claimant had proven a sale deed dated 25.08.2003 and the said document

was marked as Exhibit-1. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the

said document exhibited in the proceedings before the L.A. Judge was not

relied upon or accepted by the L.A. Judge rather he proceeded to place

reliance on Exhibit-A, a sale deed dated 01.07.2004, which was exhibited by

the State.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the State contended that the

learned L.A. Judge and the L.A. Collector had correctly assessed the amount

of compensation due to the appellant and in fact, while the highest value of

the sale deed considered by the L.A. Collector was `1,97,000 per kani, yet

seeing the potentiality of the land and the purpose of its acquisition the L.A.

Collector had enhanced that amount to `3,00,000 per kani. Therefore, it is

submitted that there is no legal or factual/foundational basis for the claim

made by the claimant in the present appeal.

The learned Government Advocate also highlighted the fact

that the appellant has failed to establish the fact that the deed under Exhibit-

1 was contiguous and/or near the land of the appellant which he admittedly

has failed to establish.

Learned counsel appearing for the L.A. Collector supported the

order impugned herein and also reiterated his grounds taken by the learned

Government Advocate.

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

perused the impugned judgment of the learned L.A. Judge in the present

case, it appears that the learned L.A. Judge did not distinguish the two

documents exhibited by either side. On one hand, Exhibit-A produced by the

State was of similar category of land as recorded in the land records of the

land acquired by the State and further the same was enhanced due to the

possible potentiality of the land to a higher sum. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the appellant contends that Exhibit-1 which was exhibited by the

appellant in course of the proceedings before the L.A. Judge was completely

ignored and hence, the actual potentiality of the land was not taken into

consideration.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others vrs.

State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 and in particular,

the considerations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court for the potentiality of

the land and in particular, paragraphs-8 and 14 thereof have been relied upon

by the appellant which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"8. The materials placed before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court show that the land is of great potential value inasmuch as the same being strategically

located at a commercial hub abutting main roads and surrounded by commercial building including that of Canal Colony, Godowns of Food Corporation of India, private and Government Residential Colonies, Red Cross Bhawan, Government Medical College, existing Grain Market and Godown of Warehousing Corporation. It was also pointed out that one pocket of the land known as "Tikoni" is having main roads on three sides.

xxx xxx xxx

14. As pointed out above, the Reference Court failed to take note of the highest exemplar, namely, the sale transaction under Ext.A-61 dated 22-07-1977. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC). In this case, this Court has held thus:

"... 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 been taken in this case."

8. On consideration of the submissions advanced and the

judgment cited and referred hereinabove, it is clear that potential use of the

land sought to be acquired is one of the considerations which the L.A.

Collector and the L.A. Judge ought to have taken into view. No doubt, the

L.A. Collector has taken into consideration the potentiality of the land and

enhanced that for the highest amount exhibited in the sale deed before it

which exhibited sale @ `1,97,000 per kani and enhanced the said amount by

approximately 50% and raised it to `3,00,000 per kani. At the same time,

learned counsel for the appellant contended that had Exhibit-1 been taken

into consideration, the value of the land ought to have been taken as

`80,00,000 per kani.

9. No doubt, the land under Exhibit-1 was categorized in the land

records as commercial „dokan‟ and the land of the appellant in the land

records is „nal‟ category of land and either a pond and its embankment but it

is also true that the location of the land of the appellant is on the main

highway between Assam and Agartala and has another road on its side. In

other words, the land is bounded by a National Highway on one side and a

further road beside the land. True it is that the categorization in the land

records indicates the appellant‟s land as „nal‟ and the deed relied upon by

the appellant under Exhibit-1 has been categorized in the land records as

„dokan‟, yet what is most important at this stage is to take into consideration

the declared purpose of the acquisition and the notification in the present

case under Section 4 of the Act issued on 10.11.2004 is for the following

purpose:

"Name of the project: Construction of Super Market under

Ranirbazar Nagar Panchayat at Nalgariya."

10. In view of the aforesaid declaration contained in the notice

under Section 4 of the Act, there can be no doubt that the object behind the

acquisition itself was for the purpose of putting the land sought to be

acquired to commercial use. Consequently, it would also derive from the

notification itself that the authorities prior to requisitioning the land had

already assessed the potentiality of the land and also the potentiality of being

put to use as a supermarket to meet the need of the people of the Nagar

Panchayat. Therefore, in my considered view, the object of the notification

of acquisition itself is not in any dispute. Once the object of the acquisition

is not in any longer in dispute, the only question that arises now for

consideration is as to whether the L.A. Judge was correct in not placing or

making any reference or any reliance on Exhibit-1 and only relying on

Exhibit-A.

11. In my considered view, the L.A. Judge erred in not taking

Exhibit-1 into consideration. Though the category of the land as recorded in

the land records was different from the land that is being acquired, but the

objective of the acquisition being undisputed the potentiality of the land

being acquired can no longer be in doubt, i.e. potentiality of the land

acquired being put to commercial use.

12. I am further of the considered opinion that since Exhibit-1

pertains to fairly small piece of land and the land acquired from the

appellant is 0.20 acres which is a larger tract of land, the value exhibited in

the sale deed under Exhibit-1 cannot be the sole foundation for any order. In

other words, Exhibit-1 has to be considered and thereafter discounted on

account of the same being for very small tract of land although Exhibit-1

sale deed was executed on 25.08.2003 extremely proximate to the date of

acquisition notice, vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e.

10.11.2004. This Court also has to take into consideration the fact that the

requisitionist for the land had itself found the land suitable for commercial

use. In my considered view, the learned L.A. Judge ought to have taken into

consideration both the sale deeds, i.e. Exhibit-1 produced by the appellant as

well as Exhibit-A which was relied upon by the State and not ignored

Exhibit-1. It must also be kept in mind that the land of the appellant was

categorized as „nal‟ (part of which was also pond) and, therefore, the

requisitionist would have also had to make substantial investment to fill up

the pond in order to make it fit for commercial use. In my considered view,

Exhibit-1 was for a very small tract of land. The land of the appellant

required further investment for making the land fit for commercial use.

Therefore, one has to take all these factors into consideration even while

making a determination of what would be the just and right amount of award

as compensation.

13. At this point, it would be important to reiterate herein that the

gap between `3,00,000 per kani and `80,00,000 per kani as claimed by the

appellant is huge and the entire burden of the acquisition would be on the

State/Nagar Panchayat and except Exhibit-1 the appellant has not produced

any other sale deed though Exhibit-1 is proximate to the date of the

acquisition notice. Therefore, taking all the aforesaid facts into

consideration, this Court is of the considered view that even if discount be

made of the value of the land for the reasons as noted hereinabove, an

amount of the land in question ought to have been determined as `8,00,000

(rupees eight lakh) per kani, i.e. 10% of the value of the sale deed under

Exhibit-1.

14. Therefore, this Court allows the present appeal keeping in view

the potentiality of the land being considered as well as the location of the

land in question and directs amendment of the award instead of `3,00,000

per kani to `8,00,000 per kani and on that basis the award may be executed

before the executing Court. The awarded amount along with all additional

compensation, solatium and interest be computed as per the provisions of

the L.A. Act and the amount, if any, released in favour of the appellant may

be suitably adjusted.

15. The appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.

16. 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