Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Santosh Kr. Sen on 17 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP. No.08/2022
The State of Tripura, Represented by the Executive Engineer, Agartala
Division V, PWD (R&B), P.O.-Agartala, Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala.
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. Sri Santosh Kr. Sen, S/O. Lt. Dinabandhu Sen, of South Badharghat,
Chourangipara, P.O. & P.S.:- Amtali, District:-West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala.
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Date of hearing and judgment : 17th January, 2023.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-State. Also heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1-claimant.
2. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
is directed against the judgment dated 18-03-2020 passed by the learned
Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.
Misc.(L.A.) 143 of 2016 whereby the learned Judge awarded an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- per kani to the claimant along with other statutory benefits.
3. Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) To admit the appeal;
(b) To issue notice to the parties;
(c) To pass necessary order by way of setting aside
the perverse and impugned Judgment dated 18.03.2020 passed
by the Ld. L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.
Misc. L.A.-143/2016.
(d) To grant stay order against the Judgment &
Award dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Ld. L.A. Judge, West
Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. L.A.-143/2016 till
disposal of the connected appeal filed by the appellant for
ends of justice.
(e) To pass such other order/orders as your
Lordship may deem fit & proper."
4. Brief facts are as under :
The Land Acquisition Collector on behalf of Government of
Tripura had acquired the land measuring 0.005 acres classified as Viti (Tilla)
comprising of plot No.7628/12611 recorded in Khatian No.24511 under
Mouja-Badharghat, Sub-Division-Sadar, West Tripura belonging to the
claimant for widening of road from NH 44 to SIPARD vide Notification
No.F.9(14)-REV/ACQ/XIV/07 dated 31.10.2008. The L.A. Collector, West
Tripura awarded an amount of Rs.21,132/- for the acquired land including
all statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant filed a
reference before learned L.A. Judge who after hearing both sides and
appreciating evidence on record awarded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- per
kani for the acquired land. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has
preferred this appeal. Hence, this case.
5. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State
contends that the learned L.A Judge without considering the factual aspects of
the matter committed an error in determining the present market value of the
acquired land. He also contends that the learned L.A. Judge did not assign any
reason while enhancing the quantum of compensation inconsistently from
Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land in an
exorbitant manner and passed a judgment which is unjust, unsustainable and
against the spirit of law. He further contends that the learned L.A. Judge while
passing the award relied on two exemplar sale deeds but the plots sold under
the said sale deeds are far away from the acquired land and the value of the
acquired land has got no relevance with the exhibited exemplar sale deeds.
Accordingly, he prays for setting aside of the judgment dated 18.03.2020
passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case
No. Misc.(L.A.) 143 of 2016.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-claimant in rebuttal to the submission advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimant relied
upon and exhibited one registered sale deed No.1-207 dated 09.01.2007 and
learned counsel referring to the said sale deed points out that the land
measuring 1 kara 1 kranta situated within selfsame mouja-Badharghat was
sold for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- which if quantified and converted to
"per kani" would come to Rs.36,92,308/-, i.e. much higher than that of the
awarded compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land.
Accordingly, he contends that the learned L.A. Judge has rightly passed the
award after appreciating the evidence on record and the same needs no
interference and prays for dismissal of the instant appeal.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court finds that while making the submissions, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has relied on a
registered exemplar sale deed within the same mouja exhibited on behalf of
the claimant wherefrom it appears that the price of the land under the sale
instance is much higher than that of the acquired land. As such, this Court is
of the opinion that the learned L.A. Judge has not committed any error while
passing the award, in fact, the learned Judge has correctly come to the
conclusion in determining the compensation in favour of the claimant after
appreciating the evidence available on record.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
impugned judgment dated 18-03-2020 passed by the learned Land
Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.
Misc.(L.A.) 143 of 2016 is hereby confirmed. The claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the amount deposited unconditionally.
9. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Send down the lower court records forthwith.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Pulak
