Tripura High Court
The General Manager Project vs Smt Archana Majumder & 7 Ors on 4 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA.App 14 of 2023
The General Manager Project
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt Archana Majumder & 7 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. U.K. Majumder, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
04.10.2023.
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the Judgment &
Award dated 08-04-2022 passed by the learned LA. Judge, West
Tripura, Agartala, Court No-4 in the Case No.Misc.L.A 40 of 2017.
[2] It is the case of the respondent-claimant, total land
measuring 0.26 acres comprised in Khatian No.1956 appertaining to
plot Nos. 6635, 6632, 6627 classified as Bagan Tilla and Bastu Tilla
situated at Mouja Uttarchampamura, Sheet No. 3/P under Sadar Sub-
Division, West Tripura District was acquired by the L.A. Collector, West
Tripura, Agartala and the value of the land has been assessed @ Rs.
62,500/- per acre along with 30% solatium and interest @ 12% per
annum w.e.f. 16.5.2002 to 15.11.2002 and thereby calculated the
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.22,100/- (Rupees twenty
two thousand one hundred) only. The respondent-claimant claimed the
value of land @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani. The claimants further stated
that the acquired lands are developed and located nearer to the
Chaturdas Devata Temple, Growth Centre, TSR Camp, Bodhjungnagar
P.S., Cattle Farm, PHC, NEEPCO, Old Agartala H.S. School, Old
Agartala Bazar, Khayerpur Bazar, Old Agartala BDO Office, Panchayet
Office, Post Office, Fire Service Station etc. The lands are well
communicated by PWD Road and AMC Road under Municipal Area. The
claimant further stated that the land acquired under the instant
proceeding is well equipped with all modern facilities and the land
has/had very much potential for commercial as well as residential use
and the value of the land is increasing day by day and that the then
market value of the acquired land was not considered by the L.A.
Collector.
[3] The O.P. No. 1 the NHIDCL, Agartala, West Tripura has
filed counter statement stating inter alia, that the land acquired by this
notification is Tilla class of land which had no potential value as
claimed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. It is also
added that there were no amenities of modern facilities like electricity,
water supply, telephone, post office, market, school, hospital, govt.
office etc. So, the assessment made by the O.P. No.2 the L.A.
Collector, West Tripura, Agartala was reasonable which was done
considering the market value of the land at the relevant period of time.
Hence, the claim of the claimants for enhancement of the amount of
compensation is not tenable in the eye of law and the same is liable to
be rejected.
[4] The O.P. No.2 the L.A. Collector through counter statement
has stated that the claim statement filed by the claimant side is not
maintainable and that the land was acquired after due compliance with
necessary statutory formalities. That the L.A. Collector after due
consideration of mandatory provisions of the L.A. Act determined the
compensation at the highest side of the prevailing market price. It is
also contended that the acquired land was Tilla class of land situated
far from the road having no potential value and there were no
amenities of modern facilities like electricity. The L.A. Collector,
therefore, prays for making the award made by them final and
absolute.
[5] On 27.8.2019 the learned court below in consideration of
the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the market value fixed by the L.A. Collector is
inadequate and improper.
(2) Whether there exist any ground for enhancement of
compensation or the claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation, if so, what should be quantum.
(3) Reliefs.
[6] The learned court below after examining the pleadings and
documents so placed before him, has observed in the following
manner:
The referring claimants of this case are entitled to get
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only per kani for the
acquired land. They will also get 30% solatium and 12%
interest on enhanced amount of compensation computing from
the date of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act up to the date of
award by L.A. Collector or the date of taking possession of
acquired land whichever is earlier as per Section 23(2) and
Section 23(1-A) of the said Act respectively. The referring
claimants will further get interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of taking over possession for one year and thereafter @
15% per annum after expiry of said one year till payment upon
the said excess amount of compensation as per Section 28 of
the L.A. Act. The interest will also be counted on additional
amount as awarded u/s 23(1-A) above and upon the solatium
awarded u/s 23(2) of the L.A. Act.
[7] Aggrieved by such award, the appellant herein has filed
this present appeal to set aside and quash the said judgment aware
dated 08-04-2022.
[8] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[9] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently contended that the order passed by the court
below is erroneous and it was passed on the strength of Exhibit of 1.
He further contended that the order passed by the court below does
not give any detail regarding enhancing the amount of compensation
from Rs.25,000/- per kani to Rs.8,00,000/- per kani. He further prays
that the matter be remanded back to the court below since the
judgment and award dated 08.04.2022 has been passed arbitrarily
without any justification by which the appellant is deprived by the
impugned award.
[10] Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. U. K. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant
submitted before this court that subject property involved in this
matter pertain to khatian no.729 covering plot Nos.7326/p and 7321/p
under the notification No.F.9(44)-REV/ACQ/VI/2002 dated 22.03.2002
which has already been decided by this court in LA.App 44 of 2023. It
is also contended by the counsel for the claimant-respondent that the
claimant claimed compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs)
only, but the claimant is entitled for more and fair compensation.
Accordingly, the LA Judge by the impugned order in challenge has
enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rupees eight lakhs) only per kani for the acquired land which appears
to be just and proper and it does not need any reconsideration by this
court. He also contended that the present matter may not be
remanded back and the appeal filed by the appellant needs to be
dismissed. He further placed on record an order dated 30.05.2023
passed by this court in LA.App No.44 of 2023 filed by the General
Manager Project wherein this court has considered the contentions of
the respondent and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment
and award dated 08.06.2022 passed by the L.A. Judge in Misc(LA) 47
of 2017. Counsel for the claimant-respondent further contended that
the matter so decided in LA.App 44 of 2023 is identical to the present
case in hand wherein the plots were also under the same Khatian
No.729 and the amount of compensation so awarded was Rs.8 lakhs
per kani.
[11] On perusal of the judgment and award dated 30.05.2023
passed by this court in LA.App No.44 of 2023, this court feels that the
present appeal is squarely covered by the same and requires no
reconsideration. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant stands
dismissed confirming the judgment & award dated 08-04-2022 passed
by the learned LA. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No-4 in the
Case No.Misc.L.A 40 of 2017.
[12] In view of the above, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS DIPAK DAS
Date: 2023.10.09
17:01:50 +05'30'
