Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Shri Nikhil Chandra Das on 11 May, 2022
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP. No.54/2020
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura,
Public Works Department (R&B), New Secretariat Complex, PO-Kunjaban,
PS-NCC, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Jirania
Division, West Tripura, Agartala.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Nikhil Chandra Das, S/O-Late Raydhan Das, Resident of Baldakhal,
P.S.-Bodhjungnagar, District- West Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Deb, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Date of hearing and judgment : 11th May, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam appearing for the
appellant-State and learned counsel Mr. A.K. Deb appearing for the private
respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Tripura
against an award dated 31.07.2019 passed in Case No.Misc.(LA) 176 of
2014 whereby the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura Judicial
District, Agartala was pleased to award a compensation for the acquired land
@ Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) per kani apart from other
consequential statutory benefits.
3. It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned Land
Acquisition Judge did not take into consideration the findings of the Land
Acquisition Collector which were based on actual grounds therein. It
appears therefrom that the State while acquiring the land of the private
respondent for the purpose of construction of an RCC Bridge over river
Howrah on Chandrapur via Baldakhal under Sadar Sub-Division had
acquired the land belonging to the private respondent. Admittedly, the Amin
on behalf of the State had collected 4(four) sale deeds, which instances are
extracted hereinbelow:
Sl. Mouja Plot Classifi Area in Deed No. & Total value Value of land Distance from
No. No. cation acre date of land per kani the land
of land (In Rs.) (In Rs.) proposed to be
acquired.
1. Uttar 356 Nal 0.10 1-2016 50,000/- 2,00,000/- 818-5" ft.
Champa dt.06/05/09
mura,
Sheet-1/P
2. -Do- 416 Bastu 0.054 1-2032 60,000/- 4,44,444/- 304 ft.
dt.24/04/08
3. -Do- 382 Nal 0.04 1-8564 50,000/- 5,00,000/- On the proposed
383 dt.3/12/07 land.
4. -Do- 170 Nal 0.03 1-759 1,49,500/- 19,93,333/- 1954 ft.
173 dt.08/02/08
4. The Land Acquisition Collector had come to conclude that the
value of the land @ Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) per kani for Nal,
Pond (Nal) and Doba (Nal) class of land and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) per kani for Bastu (Nal) and Bhiti (Nal) class of land. In course of
hearing of the reference application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 the claimant prayed for enhancement of the awarded
amount on the ground that the acquired land has very high potential value
and is having all facilities like electricity, water supply, telephone lines and
other modern communication facilities and further that the National
Highway No.44, i.e. the Assam-Agartala Road is situated at a stone's throw
distance from the acquired land. It is further contended on behalf of the
claimant that the Chandrapur Market i.e. Bazar is adjacent to the acquired
land and the Inter State Bus Terminal at Chandrapur is only one-furlong
away from the acquired land apart from the Law College and other market
areas and hospitals. Accordingly, the claimant claimed a compensation @
Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) per kani.
5. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Land
Acquisition Judge referred to various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mehrwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. v. State
of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 and also took into
consideration the determination made by the Land Acquisition Collector as
reflected in internal page Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned judgment. But the
learned Land Acquisition Judge found that the Land Acquisition Collector
did not take into consideration the sale deed No.4 allegedly because the said
land is far away from the proposed acquired land. The learned Land
Acquisition Judge after hearing the submissions of the parties and on perusal
of the documents formed the opinion that it would be proper to rely upon the
sale deed No.1-5307 dated 13.11.2009 as the highest of the exemplars. From
the said sale deed, it is transpired that a transaction was made between the
purchaser and seller for the land measuring 2 kara 16 dhur on payment of
consideration of Rs.56,000/-. That the land in issue was sold at the rate of
nearly Rs.20,00,000/- per kani and it was a 'Nal' class of land which is also
not disputed. The said transaction was made on 13.11.2009 whereas the date
of notification for acquiring the land in question was 15.01.2010. In other
words, the date of the sale deed and the date of the acquisition notice were
very close to each other within 2(two) months approximately and, therefore,
he determined that non-consideration of sale deed No.4 by the Land
Acquisition Collector has resulted in failing to provide market rate to the
land losers. The learned Land Acquisition Judge further opined that a
distance of 1954 ft. which is less than 100 yards can make no real difference
since the land in question was situated along the side of the highway near a
market place and had other potential value and concluded that the value of
the acquired land was approximately Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs)
per kani even though it was a 'Nal' class of land.
6. In the case of acquired land which is termed as Bastu (Nal)
class of land, he has mentioned that while Bastu (Nal) and Bhiti (Nal)
deserve higher rate as because to raise 'Nal' class of land to become fit for
construction of dwelling involves financial implication. He has also perused
the map filed by the claimant and from the same he found that the land in
question was touching the main road and the land was close to Agartala city
though located under the Uttar Champamura Tehsil and accordingly,
concluded that the value of the acquired land is much higher to the other
lands compared and referred to in the present case.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that the
learned Land Acquisition Judge erred by not deducting development
charges after determining the market rate that had to be deducted from such
market value once determined. In the case at hand, admittedly, the land that
was acquired by the State was for the purpose of building a bridge and
connecting road thereto over river Howrah. This land was not acquired for
any other purpose other than the requirement of building the bridge and
approach road. Consequently, the issue of deduction of development
charges in such an event does not arise and, therefore, with respect this
Court cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
State that deduction should be effected for development charges.
8. To make it further clear that development charges could be
considered where potential value of land and the cause of acquisition is for
development of land for various purposes. In the case at hand, the land has
not been acquired for any developmental purpose except for constructing
approach road and bridge. Therefore, there can be no question of any
deduction on account of development charges.
9. In view of the aforesaid findings and on perusing the impugned
judgment, this Court finds no error justifying any interference with the order
passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, the appeal
stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to pursue their remedy as a
consequence.
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/Pijush
