Tripura High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty And ... on 14 February, 2023
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP. No.19 of 2021
Along With
L.A. APP. No.20 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.21 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.22 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.23 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.28 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.31 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.32 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.38 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.41 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.67 of 2021
With
CO(FA) No.04 of 2022
L.A. APP. No.70 of 2021
L.A. APP. No.71 of 2021
In L.A. APP. No.19 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty and another
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.20 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sujit Dey and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.21 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Nitai Deb and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.22 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Nakul Chandra Saha and another ----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.23 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Dhananjoy Das and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.28 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty and another
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.31 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Dhananjoy Das and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.32 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Gautam Kumar Das and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.38 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Papul Chakraborty and another
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.41 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Netai Deb and others
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.67 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Sujit Chakraborty and another
----Respondent(s)
Along With
CO(FA) No.04 of 2022
Sri Sujit Chakraborty and another
----Appellant(s)
Versus
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.70 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Dhiman Debnath and another
----Respondent(s)
In L.A. APP. No.71 of 2021
The Managing Director, TIDC
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Tapna Singha and another
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. U.K. Majumder, Advocate,
Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate,
Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate,
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
Date of hearing and judgment : 14th February, 2023.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. These
appeals arise in common background. Since facts are identical, they have
been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.
For convenience, we may record facts from LA APP No.19 of 2021.
[2] The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the judgment dated
14.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.3,
West Tripura, Agartala in Misc(L.A) 22 of 2016 wherein the learned Judge
awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- per kani to the claimant.
[3] Brief facts are as under :
The Government of Tripura had acquired certain lands
belonging to the respondents. By a notification dated 29.01.2010, the said
land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Tripura Industrial
Development Corporation Limited. The acquired land had fallen under
Plot No.174/8655, Sheet No.1/P of Khatian No.1321 of land measuring
2.00 acres classified as Chankhola („Tilla‟). The Land Acquisition
Collector, West Tripura, Agartala assessed the value of the land @
Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for the acquired land and also additional
compensation @ 30% solatium and interest @ 12% per annum. The
respondents received the compensation under protest contending that the
compensation awarded by the L.A Collector was inadequate considering to
the market price of the land. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the
learned L.A. Judge, the claimant filed an application before the L.A.
Collector with a prayer to make reference on their case and prayed for
referring the case to the learned L.A. Judge for proper determination of
compensation. The learned L.A. Judge after appreciating the documents on
record awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- per kani to the claimant.
[4] The claimant appeared before the learned LA. Judge and filed
claim statement alleging that the aforesaid land had high potential value
and further stated that at the time of acquisition, the market value of the
land was around Rs.60,00,000/- per kani which was not considered by the
L.A. Collector.
[5] On the other hand the opposite party (Managing Director,
TIDC Limited) had contested the claim of the claimant inter alia alleging
that the acquired land was „Tilla‟ class of land and was situated far away
from the main road and at the time of acquisition, the acquired land had no
potential value as claimed by the claimant. They claimed that the claim of
the claimant was not maintainable and the learned L.A Collector had
correctly awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant based on the
prevailing market price of the land. The opposite party No.2 (LA
Collector) also stated in the same tune with the opposite party No.1
(Managing Director, TIDC Limited) by filing counter statement alleging
that the claimant was not entitled to get further compensation.
[6] The learned L.A. Judge after perusing the claim statement as
well as the counter statement submitted by the parties and after considering
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant and the opposite
parties, observed that plots of land were „dokan viti‟ for which the land
under the exhibited sale deeds were not comparable with the acquired land
as no settlement map was proved to show the exact location of the plots of
land under Exbt.[A] and Exbt.[B] from the acquired land. Considering all
these factors, the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation for the
acquired from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per kani. The operative portion
of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :
"In the result, the petition under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as referred by the L.A. Collector, West
Tripura, Agartala is allowed on contest. The referring
claimant namely, Sri Pradip Kumar Chakraborty is entitled to
get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.7,00,000/- per kani. The compensation shall be added with
30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and 12%
interest under Section 23(i)(A) of the L.A. Act from the date
of notification under Section 4 of the said Act till the date of
taking over the possession of the acquired land or the date of
award whichever is earlier. The interest on the amount of
compensation and solatium shall be at the rate of 9% per
annum over the enhanced amount given for land from the
date of taking over the possession, till one year and @ rate of
15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the
date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation.
The amount so paid earlier as compensation under Section 11
of the L.A. Act shall be adjusted with the amount awarded by
way of enhancement."
[7] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the
learned L.A Judge, the appellant has filed this instant appeal seeking the
following relief :
"(i) Admit the appeal;
(ii) Call for the records pertaining to Case No. Misc.(LA) 22
of 2016 from the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.3,
West Tripura, Agartala;
(iii) Pass an order for preparation of paper book;
(iv) In the interim be kind enough to stay the impugned
judgment dated 14.05.2019, Case No. MISC (LA) 22 of 2016
till disposal of the appeal;
(v) After hearing the parties, be kind enough to set aside the
judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in Case No. MISC (LA)
22 of 2016 for the fair ends of justice."
[8] Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the learned L.A Judge committed an error in
enhancing the market value of the acquired land. He further submits that the
learned L.A. Judge did not assign any reason in enhancing the quantum of
compensation for the acquired land and passed a whimsical judgment which
calls for interference. He further contends that findings given by the learned
L.A judge in enhancing the compensation at the rate of 7 lakhs per kani has
no basis as the same having been not based on any reason cannot be the
precedent of all future cases. He further contends that even the judgment
passed earlier in this appeal factually is incorrect and uniformly in all cases
cannot be applied barring in cases of the residential area or the commercial
area which has high potential value. Consequently, he prays for setting aside
the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition
Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc(L.A) 22 of 2016. On the
other hand, Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned senior counsel and Mr. P. Gautam,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that the matter
may be remanded back to the court below for consideration afresh.
[9] After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court feels that the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge is erroneous
as the same has been passed without giving any proper reason as to how
from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per kani has been evaluated. It is
understood that while fixing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
some guesswork needs to be made but it does not mean that the guesswork
could shoot up from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- without any proper
comparison or any supporting evidence. The guesswork made by the learned
court below in deciding the compensation suffers from any valid reason
which cannot be appreciated.
[10] Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant is
allowed and the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Land
Acquisition Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc(L.A) 22 of
2016 is hereby set aside and the same is remanded back to the court below to
pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. The court below after hearing
learned counsel for both sides once again shall pass a reasoned order at the
earliest preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to say, the aforesaid decision
passed insofar as the L.A. APP. No.19 of 2021 is concerned shall also apply
mutatis mutandis in respect of the other connected appeals also and in those
appeals the judgments of the learned L.A. Judge are also set aside and the
same be remanded back to the trial Court for consideration afresh.
[11] Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of. Return the LCRs forthwith.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Dipesh
