The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Smt. Swapna Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 31 Tri

                               Page 1 of 6



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                         LA APP No.53 of 2021
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway, Badharghat
Railway Complex, P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S. Amtali, Agartala, Tripura,
West.
                                                     ......Appellant(s)
                              VERSUS
1. Smt. Swapna Das, daughter of Sri Dhananjoy Das, resident of village-
Murabari, P.O. Murabari, P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

2. The Land Acquisition Collector, District- West Tripura, Agartala.
                                                       ......Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)         :      Mr. Ashutosh De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)        :      None.

            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Date of hearing and Judgment : 9th January, 2023.

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. Ashutosh De, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

[2] The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the award dated

28.02.2020 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala

District, Bishalgarh in Misc(L.A) 24 of 2015 wherein the learned Judge

awarded an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- per kani to the claimant.

[3] Brief facts are as under :

The Government of Tripura had acquired the land belonging

to the respondents. By a notification dated 27.07.2011 followed by a

declaration, the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of

'New Rail Line' from Agartala to Sabroom. The acquired land had fallen

under Plot No.2755/23664, Sheet No.4/P of Khatian No.6204 of land

measuring 0.05 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura

awarded an amount of Rs.1,85,712/- for the acquired land including all

statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned L.A.

Judge, the claimant filed an objection 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.17,50,000/- per kani to the claimant.

[4] The claimant appeared before the learned LA. Judge and

submitted her claim statement alleging that the aforesaid land was used

for agricultural purpose and due to acquisition, she suffered huge loss and

the State Government did not compensate her adequately. The claimant

claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per kani for the

aforesaid acquisition. In order to substantiate her claim, she adduced sale

deeds bearing No.1-107 dated 17.01.2009 and bearing No.1-362 dated

18.02.2009. She further stated that the area of acquisition has high

potential value.

[5] On the other hand the opposite party contested the claim of

the claimant and did not dispute the fact that the aforesaid land was

acquired for the purpose of construction of railway line. However, they

denied and disputed the fact that the compensation to the claimant was

less. It was contended that the claimant was duly compensated as per the

market value of land and was not entitled to get any further compensation

for the acquisition.

[6] The learned L.A. Judge after considering the pleadings of the

parties, framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the instant proceeding is maintainable from the eye of law?

(ii) Whether the award passed by the LA Collector is just, proper and reasonable?

(iii) Whether the referring claimant is entitled to get any enhance amount of award and if so, up to what extent?

[7] The learned L.A. Judge after framing the issues observed that

the land under [Exbt.2] and land acquired were not the same nature and

their utility was also different. He further observed that the location of the

acquired land and the land sold by [Exbt.2] were not clear and the land sold

by [Exbt.2] had fallen under a more developed areas in comparison to the

acquired land. Therefore, after appreciating the documents on record and

after hearing counsel for both sides, the learned L.A. Judge awarded

compensation to the claimant @ Rs.17,50,000/- per kani for the acquired

land. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :

"In the result, the application of the referring claimant for enhancement of award is allowed. It is hereby directed that the referring claimant is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.17,50,000/- per kani for the acquired land. The referring claimant will also get 30% solatium and 12% further enhanced amount of compensation upon the said land value computing from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 till the date of award by the Collector or the date of taking possession of land whichever is earlier, as per Section 23(2) and 23(1)(A) of the Act respectively. The referring claimant will further get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession from one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum after expiry of one year till the date of payment upon the enhanced amount. It is also directed that interest will also be counted on additional amount as awarded u/s 23(1A) of the Act and upon the solatium awarded u/s 23(2) of the Act. The amount already paid shall be adjusted against the compensation awarded. In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost of proceeding."

[8] 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 of Misc.(LA) 24 of 2015 from the Court of Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma);

(iii) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to allow this appal by setting aside the judgment and award dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma) in connection with Misc. (L.A) 24 of 2015;

(v) Any other relief and relives as your Lordship deem fit and proper having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case."

[9] Mr. Ashutosh De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned L.A Judge committed an error in determining the

market value of the acquired land. He further submits that the learned L.A.

Judge did not assign any reason in deciding the quantum of compensation

for the acquired land and passed a whimsical judgment which is against the

spirit of law. He further contends that the claimant at the time of adducing

evidence, some exemplar deeds has been submitted for showing the present

market value of the land but the deeds submitted by the claimant is far

away from the acquired land. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside of the

award dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge,

Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in Misc (L.A) 24 of 2015.

[10] After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court

is of the considered view that before the learned L.A. Judge, the Railway

authorities have not made out any case with regard to the distance between

the acquired land and the land under exemplar sale deeds produced by the

claimant on record to say that the claimant is not entitled to the enhanced

amount. Now in appeal, for the first time, it is not open for them to say that

there is huge distance between the acquired land and the land under the

exemplar sale deeds produced. In my opinion, the learned L.A. Judge did

not commit any error in passing the award. The learned L.A Judge has

correctly come to the conclusion and awarded the compensation in favour

of the claimant after appreciating evidence on record and no interference is

required in the award passed by the learned L.A. Judge.

[11] Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant is

dismissed and the award dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Land

Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in Misc (L.A) 24 of 2015

is affirmed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

[12] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Dipesh