In Charge vs ) Md. Michilar Rahaman
2023 Latest Caselaw 173 Tri

                           Page 1 of 8


                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                  LA APP NO.5 OF 2021

In Charge, HR-IR, ONGC Limited,
Having his office at Badharghat, Agartala,
P.O. A.D. Nagar, P.S.- Amtali, West Tripura.
                                      ......... Appellant(s)
                 Vs.

1) Md. Michilar Rahaman,
S/o- Late Badar Ali,
Vill- Thakurmura,
P.S. Sonamura,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura

                 ....... Referring Claimant-Respondent(s)

2) The Land Acquisition Collector, Bishramganj, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

........Opposite Party Respondent(s)

LA APP NO.6 OF 2021

In Charge, HR-IR, ONGC Limited, Having his office at Badharghat, Agartala, P.O. A.D. Nagar, P.S.- Amtali, West Tripura.

......... Appellant(s) Vs.

1) Md. Michilar Rahaman, S/o- Late Badar Ali, Resident of Thakurmura, P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura

....... Referring Claimant-Respondent(s)

2) The Land Acqusition Collector, Bishramganj, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

........Opposite Party Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Dasgupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : None.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 21.02.2023

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

Both these appeals are heard and taken up

together for disposal since they arise from common notification

and similar questions of facts and law are involved. For sake of

convenience, we may record facts from L.A. App. No.5 of 2021.

2. This instant appeal is filed by the appellant herein

under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the

award dated 23.05.2019 passed in Misc.(L.A.) No.43 of 2012,

whereby, the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura

allowed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 holding that the claimant is entitled to get

compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.4.50 lakhs per kani

with other statutory benefits.

3. The fact of the case, in brief, is that vide

declaration No.F.9(10-REV/ACQ/VIII/2008 dated 02.09.2008,

0.18 acres of land classified as 'Nal' class of land appertaining

to Khatain No.1707 plot No.1739/6654 of Mouja Khedabari,

sheet No.3/p was acquired by the Government for the purpose

of construction of S.A. Drill site and waste pit for the location

of SNDA under Sonamura Sub-Division along with other lands.

The L.A. Collector determined the valuation of the land @

Rs.1,33,000/- per kani and paid the compensation accordingly

with other statutory benefits. But as the claimant-respondent

was not satisfied with the award, he asked for making

reference under Section 18 of the Act of L.A. Act, 1894.

4. The case was registered as Misc.(L.A.) No.43 of

2012 in the Court of learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District,

Sonamura. After registration of the case, notices were issued

upon the parties of this case. Accordingly, the referring

claimant appeared and filed claim statement. In the claim

statement, it was submitted by the referring claimant that he is

the owner in possession of the said land. The land was

accordingly acquired by the Government for the construction of

SA Drill site and waste pit for the location of SNDA under

Sonamura Sub-Division. He further submitted that the land is a

high potential land and is used as 'dokan' vitta having thick

population around it. The land is situated near Thakurmura

market by the side of Sonamura-Agartala via Thakurmura

market. The claimant claimed that the market value of the

acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs.6 lakhs per kani

and the present valuation is Rs.25 lakhs per kani. The L.A.

Collector did not consider the prevailing market price and paid

lesser amount of compensation to the referring claimant. The

referring claimant exhibited 2(two) documents i.e. Extb-1:-

Original copy of the title deed bearing No.1-70 dated

19.01.2002 executed by Mukleswer Rahaman in favour of

referring claimant and Exbt-2:- Certified copy of sale deed

bearing No.1-1298 dated 28.07.2006 executed by one Dulal

Bhowmik in favour of Babatosh Debnath.

5. The Requiring Department contested the case by

filing counter statement denying the entire assertions of the

claimant petitioner and further submitted that the acquired

land was far away from Sonamura town and it had no

commercial importance and potential value. The L.A Collector

after considering the prevailing market price paid appropriate

compensation to the referring claimant which was just and

proper.

6. The O.P. No.2 i.e L.A. Collector also filed counter

statement denying the entire assertions of the referring

claimant. It was submitted by the L.A. Collector that the

acquired land had no commercial importance and no potential

value. After considering all aspects, Rs.1,33,000/- per kani

along with other statutory benefits was determined as

compensation, and the same was paid accordingly.

7. The learned L.A. Judge after hearing the parties

and perusing the evidence on record, enhanced the

compensation to Rs.4.50 lakhs per kani from Rs.1,33,000/- per

kani. The operative portion of the said award is as under:-

"O R D E R

14. In the result, the reference made by the L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the L.A. Act is hereby allowed. The referring claimant is hereby entitled to get compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.4.50 lakh (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand) per kani.

15. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be added with 30% Solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act and 12% interest under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier.

16. The interest on the enhanced amount of compensation and solatium shall be @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation is made."

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

judgment and award passed on 23.05.2019 in Misc.(L.A.)

No.43 of 2012, the appellant has preferred this instant appeal

and prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i) Admit this appeal.

ii) Call for records,

iii) Issue notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and award passed on 23.05.2019 in Misc. (L.A.) No.43 of 2012 shall not be set aside and the appeal be now allowed; and

iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to allow the appeal."

9. Heard Mr. R. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

10. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the judgment and award as passed by

the learned L.A. Judge is perverse and erroneous in point of

law and facts. The finding of the learned L.A. Judge is based on

no valid or relevant material and as a result, the amount

determined as compensation by the Court below is unduly

exaggerated. The learned L.A. Judge has committed error in

not appreciating the relevant documents, particularly the

assessment note filed by the L.A. Collector, respondent No.2.

The L.A. Judge ignored the lawful method of determination of

appropriate market value on the relevant date. Stating thus,

learned counsel prayed to dismiss this appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as perused the evidence on record. The

Court below while deciding the land appeal relied upon the

two exhibits i.e. exhibits Nos.1 and 2. On perusal of those

exhibits, the Court below observed that both the sale deeds

belong to the same Mouja. On perusal of exhibit-2, it was

observed that the land involved was of lesser quantum which

was sold @ Rs.4 lakhs per kani. But on perusal of exhibit-1, it

was found that it was less than Rs.90,000/- per kani. So for

the determination of the market value of the land, no reliance

was placed on exhibit-1. Further to counter the exhibit-2, no

other documentary evidence was issued by the O.P.s. Exhibit-

2 was executed in the year 2006 and in the case at hand, the

notification was issued in the year 2008 i.e. the sale

transaction took place about 2 years earlier from the date of

issuance of the notification by the L.A. Collector. The Court

below further held that since no evidence was put forth to

rebut the evidence of exhibit-2, the Court below found no

scope to discard exhibit-2. Thereafter, the Court below

considering the present market condition determined the

value of the acquired land @ Rs.4.50 lakhs per kani. In view

of the above-detailed observation and findings of the learned

L.A. Judge, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned

judgment and award dated 23.05.2019 is passed on the

strength of the exhibited sale deed and is based on valid

reason and findings and needs no interference. Accordingly,

the same is upheld and this instant appeal stands dismissed.

Needless to say, the aforesaid decision passed insofar as the

L.A App No.5 of 2021 is concerned shall also apply mutatis

mutandis in respect L.A. App. No.06 of 2021.

12. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Return the LCRs

forthwith.

JUDGE

suhanjit