Tripura High Court
The Executive Officer vs Sri Surajit Roy on 7 February, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP NO.07 OF 2021
The Executive Officer,
Tripura Housing & Construction Board,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala,
P.O- New Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799006.
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Sri Surajit Roy,
S/o- Shri Mrinal Kanti Roy,
Of Jogendranagar,
P.O-Jogendranagar,
P.S- East Agartala,
Pin-799004.
District- West Tripura.
............Referring Claimant-Respondent(s).
2. L.A. Collector,
West Tripura,
Office of the DM & Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala, Pin-799001
....... O.P.Respondent(s)
LA APP NO.14 OF 2020
The Chief Executive Officer,
Of the Tripura Housing & Construction Board,
West Tripura, Agartala.
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Sri Surajit Roy,
S/o- Shri Mrinal Kanti Roy,
Village- Jogendranagar,
Sheet No.1/P, Tehsil-
Srinagar, District-West Tripura
Power of Attorney Holder of Sri Arijit Roy, S/o Sri Mrinal
Kanti Roy, Village- Jogendranagar, Mouja, Anandanagar
Sheet No.1/P, Tehsil- Srinagar, District-West Tripura.
2. L.A. Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala.
LA APP NO.15 OF 2020
The Chief Executive Officer,
Of the Tripura Housing & Construction Board,
West Tripura, Agartala.
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy,
S/o- Late Asutosh Roy,
Resident of Jogendranagar,
P.S.- East Agartala, District-West Tripura.
2. L.A. Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Ms. D. Sengupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Deb, Advocate.
Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 07.02.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
All these present appeals are tagged, heard, and
taken up together for disposal vide this common judgment and
order since the similar question of law and facts are involved. For
the sake of convenience, L.A. App. No.07 of 2021 is taken up as
the lead case.
2. The brief fact of this case is that respondent No.2
vide notification No.F.9(9)-REV/ACQ/XIV/07 dated 12.09.2007
acquired the land of the claimant-respondent under West Tripura
District, Sub-Division-Sadar, Mouja-Anandanagar appertaining to
Khatian No.2618 comprising of Hal Plot No.286(P) measuring
0.14 acres. Respondent No.2 assessed the value of the land at
Rs.20,50,000/- per acre. So, the claimant-respondent received
total compensation of Rs.8,20,000/- per kani which was paid
accordingly.
3. For redetermination of the compensation, the
claimant-respondent herein preferred an application under
Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the learned L.A. Judge, West
Tripura which was registered as Misc.(L.A)36 of 2015 After
hearing the parties, the learned L.A. Judge accordingly, enhanced
the amount from Rs.20,50,000/- per acre to Rs.30,00,000/- per
acre.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein has filed
this instant appeal for setting aside the judgment and award
dated 10.02.2020 passed by the learned L.A. Judge in
Misc.(L.A)36 of 2015,
5. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel along
with Ms. D. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as well as Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel along with Mr. D. Debnath,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the claimant respondent failed to
produce any document relating to the enhancement of the rate,
and in absence of any such proof, the Court below enhanced the
amount of the compensation. The learned Court below also failed
to appreciate the settled law of the land that at the time of
assessment of the compensation, a similar kind of land shall be
taken into consideration not only in its class but also in its
measurement.
7. Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1.
8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the
evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that this instant
appeal is liable to be remanded back since the enhancement from
Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs) per kani to Rs.14,00,000/-
(Rupees fourteen lakhs) per kani and via media fixing it to
Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs) per kani is unreasoned. It is
relevant to note that Exbt-4, i.e. a sale deed wherein the
valuation of the land is given at Rs.14,00,000/- per kani, is made
after the said notification is issued. Exbt-F, i.e. another sale deed
wherein the value of the land is given at Rs.8,00,000/- per kani is
of the year 2006. So the order passed by the Court below is not
supported by any reason, only guesswork has been made, since
the guesswork is under challenge, this Court feels that proper
reasoning could have been given. Hence the matter is remanded
back.
9. So in view of the above, all these 3(three) appeals
are remanded back to the Court of the learned L.A. Judge for
fresh adjudication of the matters individually/separately within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order. The parties concerned are also directed to cooperate
with the Court below for the disposal of the matter within the
aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the parties is also at liberty
to file a certified copy of this order before the Court below.
10. Accordingly, all these 3(three) appeals are disposed
of. Consequently, pending application(s), if any also stands
closed.
Send back the LCRs forthwith to the Court below.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
