Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer(Con-2) ... vs Sri Samar Hrishidas And Anr on 21 September, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP NO.30 OF 2023
The Deputy Chief Engineer(Con-2) No.1, N.F. Railway,
Badharghat, Agartala.
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sri Samar Hrishidas and anr.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
For the Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 21.09.2023
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present appeal has been filed under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and order
dated 30.06.2022 passed in L.A.(Ref)116 of 2018 by the learned
L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.
2. The brief fact of this case is that as per the requisition
of the appellant, the land of the respondent-claimants was
acquired by the respondent No.2 vide notification dated
30.03.2013 for lying the Railway track from Agartala to Sabroom,
the L.A. Collector, South Tripura, Belonia awarded compensation of
Rs.3,30,000/- per kani for the acquired land to the claimant-
respondents herein.
3. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation,
the respondent-claimant filed an application under Section 18 of
the L.A. Act, 1894 for referring the matter to the L.A. Judge, South
Tripura for determination of proper compensation and accordingly,
the same was referred. The learned L.A. Judge after following the
due procedure and after hearing both the parties, vide Judgment
dated 30.06.2022 enhanced the amount of award @
Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs) per kani for the acquired
land.
4. Being aggrieved with the said Judgment and award
dated 30.06.2022, passed the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura,
Belonia, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal for setting
aside the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.06.2022.
5. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI
appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
6. Mr. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the
appellant submits that sale deed No.1-465 of the year 2011 which
the L.A. Judge relied upon in awarding the impugned compensation
has not been marked as exhibit and in terms of the para-3 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652
titled as Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona, and anr., and also Vijay Singh
Lidadhar Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, credence can not
be given to the same. The said citation is reproduced here-in-
under:-
"3..................... (3) The Court has to treat the reference
as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh
on the basis of the materials produced before it.............."
7. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
8. The only point that has been highlighted by the
learned Deputy SGI and the same which falls for consideration
before this Court is that the Court below has given importance to
sale deed document No.1/465 of 2011 which has been examined
by the L.A. Collector at serial No.1 showing that the class of land is
'vastu' 'tilla' and rate per kani is Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty
lakhs). Accordingly, the compensation in the present matter has
been fixed.
9. On verification of the impugned Judgment and also
the exhibits marked as pointed out by learned Deputy SGI, it is
noticed that the said sale deed has not been taken on record and
the same is not marked as exhibit.
10. In view of the same, placing reliance upon the
Judgment of Chaimanlal Hargovinddas(supra) wherein it is
stated that where the exhibits are not marked, no credence can be
given to the same, the present appeal is allowed and the matter is
required to be remanded back to the Court below by setting aside
the impugned Judgment. The Court below is to pass a reasoned
order on the same on the strength of the evidence which is already
available on record and also on the strength of the argument which
has been already advanced. However, if both parties wish to make
any submission, they are at liberty to file their additional evidence
and also advance argument on the same. The Court below shall
decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
11. With the above observation and direction, this present
appeal stands allowed and remanded back by setting aside the
impugned Judgment 30.06.2022. As a sequel, stay if any stands
vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.09.25
SINGHA 16:54:27 +05'30'
