Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Name Of Chinu Rani Roy Deleted Vide Order ... on 14 August, 2024
Page 1 of 14
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. No.31 of 2023
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-1),
N.F. Railway, Badharghat, Agartala.
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. [Name of Chinu Rani Roy deleted vide order dated 19.01.2024
in I.A. No.03 of 2023]
2. Smt. Mira Roy Sarkar,
Wife of Ratan Sarkar, daughter of lt Harimohan Roy, resident of
Bhubanban, Lankamura, P.O.+P.S. Airport, District- West
Tripura.
3. Smt. Lilu Roy Biswas,
Wife of Phani Biswas, daughter of late Harimohan Roy, resident
of Ghilatali, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura.
4. Smt. Shipra Roy (Biswas),
Wife of Prafulla Biswas, daughter of late Harimohan Roy,
resident of South Ghilatali, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai,
Tripura.
5. Smt. Sakuntala Roy,
Wife of late Chitta Ranjan Roy, resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura.
6. Smt. Debasree Roy (Sarkar),
Wife of Nirmal Sarkar, D/o late Chitta Ranjan Roy, resident of
Ishan Chandra Nagar, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Mohanpur, District-
West Tripura.
7. Smt. Dipuka Roy,
Daughter of late Chitta Ranjan Roy, resident of Charipara, P.S.
Amtali, District- West Tripura.
8. Smt. Sadhana Roy Sarkar,
Wife of lt. Naresh Sarkar, D/o late Sagar Chandra Roy, resident
of Charipara, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
9. Sri Amrit Roy,
Son of late Sagar Chandra Roy, resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura.
10. Deleted.
10. a) Smt. Arunbala Roy,
Wife of Lt. Abani Mohan Roy, resident of Belabar, Charipara,
P.O. S.D. Mission, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
10. b) Sri Parimal Roy,
Son of Lt. Abani Mohan Roy, resident of Charipara, P.O. S.D.
Mission, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
10. c) Smt. Kabita Roy,
Page 2 of 14
Daughter of Late Abani Mohan Roy, wife of Sri Haradhan
Sarkar, resident of North Madhabpur, Ishan Chandra Nagar,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
10. d) Smt. Sabita Roy,
Daughter of Late Abani Mohan Roy, wife of Haripada Das,
resident of Nalchar, P.S. Melaghar, District- Sepahijala
Tripura.
11. Sri Abhiranjan Roy,
Son of late Sagar Chandra Roy, resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District- West Tripura.
12. Smt. Kanchan Chowdhury @ Kanchan Sarkar Chowdhury,
Daughter of late Manindra Chandra Sarkar, wife of late Paresh
Chowdhury, resident of Narayanpur, P.S. Airport, District- West
Tripura.
13. a) Smt. Sabita Mallik Sarkar,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Rabindra Sarkar, resident
of Belabar, Charipara, P.O. S.D. Mission, P.S. Amtali, District-
West Tripura.
13. b) Smt. Soma Mallik,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Ashim Majumder, resident
of Charipara, P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali, District- West
Tripura.
13. c) Smt. Rinku Mallik,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Kamal Das, resident of
East Badharghat, P.O. A.D. Nagar, P.S. Amtali, District- West
Tripura.
13. d) Smt. Anita Mallik,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Lokesh Mallik, resident of
Charipara, P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
13. e) Smt. Ruma Mallik,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Joy Bhowmik, resident of
Charipara, P.O. Charipara, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
13. f) Smt. Kabita Mallik Das,
Daughter of late Ranjit Mallik, wife of Dilip Kumar Das, resident
of Bankumari, Madhuban, P.O. Bankumari, P.S. East Agartala,
District- West Tripura.
14. Sri Sunil Sarkar,
Son of late Manindra Chandra Sarkar, resident of Charipara,
P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
15. Smt. Jharna Das @ Jharna Sarkar (Das),
Daughter of late Manindra Chandra Sarkar, wife of Ratan Das,
resident of village- Amtali, P.S. Amtali, District- West Tripura.
16. Smt. Anima Sarkar,
Daughter of late Manindra Chandra Sarkar, wife of Nandalal
Sarkar, resident of Lankamura, P.S. Airport, District- West
Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)(Referring Claimants)
17. The Land Acquisition Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala.
........ Respondent(s)
1. Smt. Mira Roy Sarkar (Age- 44 years),
W/o Ratan Sarkar, D/o Lt. Harimohan Roy, Resident of
Bhubanban, Lankamura, P.O.& P.S. Airport, District Tripura
West.
2. Smt. Litu Roy Biswas (Age- 37 years),
W/o Phani Biswas, D/o Lt. Harimohan Roy, Resident of Ghilatali,
P.S. Kalyanpur, District Khowai Tripura.
3. Smt. Shipra Roy (Biswas) (Age- 53 years),
W/o Prafulla Biswas, D/o Lt. Harimohan Roy, resident of South
Ghilatali, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Khowai Tripura.
4. Smt. Sakuntala Roy (Age- 55 years),
W/o Lt. Chittaranjan Roy, Resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District Tripura West.
5. Smt. Debasree Roy (Sarkar) (Age- 30 years),
W/o Nirmal Sarkar, D/o Lt. Chitta Ranjan Roy, Resident of village
Ishan Chandra Nagar, P.O. Madhabpur, District Tripura West.
6. Smt. Dipika Roy (Age- 28 years),
D/o Lt. Chitta Ranjan Roy, Resident of Charipara, P.S Amtali,
District Tripura West.
(Referring-Claimants-Respondent-Cross Objector Nos. 5 & 6 are
being represented by Referring-Claimants-Respondent-Cross
Objector No.4 being their constituted Attorney by dint of
Registered General Power of Attorney vide No. IV-578, dated
28/12/2017).
7. Smt. Sadhana Roy Sarkar (Age- 67 years),
W/o Lt. Naresh Sarkar, D/o Lt. Sagar Chandra Roy, Resident
of Charipara, P.S. Amtali, District Tripura West.
8. Amrit Roy (Age- 54 years),
S/o Lt. Sagar Chandra Roy, Resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District Tripura West.
9. Abhiranjan Roy (Age 58 years),
S/o Lt. Sagar Chandra Roy, Resident of Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District Tripura West.
10. Smt. Kanchan Chowdhury @ Kanchan Sarkar Chowdhury
(Age- 65 years),
D/o Lt. Manindra Chandra Sarka, W/o Lt. Paresh Chowdhury,
resident of village Narayanpur, P.S- Airport, District Tripura
West.
11. Sri Sunil Sarkar (Age 58 years),
S/o Lt. Manindra Ch. Sarkar, Resident of:- Charipara, P.S. Amtali,
District Tripura West.
12. Smt. Jharna Das @ Jharna Sarkar (Das) (Age- 54 years),
D/o Lt. Manindra Ch. Sarkar, W/o Ratan Das, Resident of village
Charipara, P.S- Amtali, District Tripura West.
13. Smt. Anima Sarkar (Age- 40 years),
D/o Lt. Manindra Chandra Sarkar, W/o- Nandalal
Sarkar,Resident of- Lankamura, P.S- West Agartala, District- West
Tripura.
Legal heirs of Abani Mohan Roy
14. Smt. Arunbala Roy,
W/o Lt. Abani Mohan Roy.
15. Sri Parimal Roy,
S/o Lt. Abani Mohan Roy, Both Residents of Charipara, P.S-
Amtali, P.O- S.D Mission, District- West Tripura.
16. Smt. Kabita Roy,
D/o Lt. Abani Mohan Roy, W/o Sri Haradhan Sarkar, Resident of
North Madhabpur, Ishan Chandra Nagar, P.S- Amtali, District-
West Tripura.
17. Smt. Sabita Roy,
D/o Lt. Abani Mohan Roy, W/o Haripada Das, Resident of
Nalchar, P.S- Melaghar, District- Sepahijala Tripura.
Legal heirs of Kanan Mallik @ Kanan Sarkar Mallik
18. Smt. Sabita Mallik Sarkar,
W/o Rabindra Sarkar, Resident of Belabar, Charipara, P.O- S.D.
Mission, District- West Tripura.
19. Smt. Soma Mallik,
W/o Ashim Majumder, Resident of- Charipara, P.O- Charipara,
District- West Tripura.
20. Smt. Rinku Mallik,
W/o Kamal Das, Resident of- East Badharghat, P.O- A.D. Nagar,
District- West Tripura.
21. Smt. Anita Mallik,
W/o Lokesh Mallik, Resident of Charipara, P.O- Charipara,
District- West Tripura.
22. Smt. Ruma Mallik,
W/o Joy Bhowmik, Resident of- Charipara, P.O- Charipara,
District- West Tripura.
23. Smt. Kabita Mallik Das,
W/o Dilip Kumar Das, Resident of- Bankimari, Madhuban, P.O-
Bankumari, District- West Tripura.
.........Referring-Claimants-Respondent-Cross Objector(s)
-Versus-
1. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Con-1,
N.F. Railway, Badharghat, Agartala, P.S- Amtali, District- West
Tripura.
.........O.P No.1-Appellant-Respondent(s)
2. The L.A Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala, PIN- 799001.
........ O.P No.2-Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. S.G.I.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Deb, Advocate.
Ms. P. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Cross Objector(s) : Mr. D. Deb, Advocate.
Ms. P. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI.
[In CO(FA) 11/2023]
Date of hearing : 17th May, 2024.
Date of delivery of : 14th August, 2024.
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Both the appeal and the cross appeal arise out of the
judgment passed in the form of award dated 30.09.2022 by the
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority,
Tripura (for short, "the authority") deciding the valuation of the
acquired land @ Rs.9,90,000/- per kani.
[2] An area of 1.14 acre of „Nal‟ and „Chara‟ (Nal) classes of
land of the cross appellants (hereinafter referred as the claimants)
was acquired for construction under Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short- the Act of 2013) for the
purpose of construction of Agartala-Akhaura New Rail Line vide
notification No.F.9(05)-REV/ACQ/VI/2016 dated 28.01.2017. The
acquired land falls within Mouja-Charipara under sheet No.1/P and
2/P under different plots of Khatian No.2076/1/4/5.
[3] The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation
@ Rs.4,50,000/- per kani for all classes of land acquired under
said project. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimants sought for
reference and accordingly, it was referred. Before the Authority,
both the claimants and Land Acquisition Collector produced their
respective evidences to support their respective pleadings and
finally, the Tribunal awarded compensation @ Rs.9,90,000/- per
kani as indicated earlier.
[4] Being aggrieved by said award, the Requiring
Department, N.F. Railway preferred L.A. Appeal No.31 of 2023
whereas the claimants preferred CO(FA) No.11 of 2023 claiming
enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,25,00,000/- per kani which was
their actual claim before the Authority.
[5] Mr. B Majumder, learned Dy. S.G.I. for the Requiring
Department-appellant argued that the Tribunal itself had doubted
the sale exemplar under Exbt.3 but ultimately said deed was taken
into consideration by said Authority going beyond the settled
principle of law. Learned Dy. S.G.I., also referred Para 27 of the
impugned award and argued that in one place the Tribunal
reduced 40% from the consideration price of said Exbt.3 on the
ground of its high potential value and of being smaller in size,
whereas, in another place it reduced 60% thereof which were self-
contradictory and indicative of the fact that the Authority itself was
in dilemma as to which sale exemplar should be taken into
consideration. According to Mr. Majumder, learned Dy. S.G.I.,
Exbt.3 was not actually a reliable sale exemplar for determination
of value of such acquired land and awarded amount is liable to be
reduced.
[6] According to Mr. Majumder, learned Dy.S.G.I., from the
revenue map it appeared that the lands under Exbt.B and Exbt.D
as were proved from the side of Land Acquisition Collector were
much closer to the acquired land and therefore, same ought to
have been made basis for determination of compensation,
whereas, the land under Exbt.C was not even traceable in the map
and therefore, it could be safely presumed that said land was
situated far away from the acquired land.
[7] Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel representing the claimants
submitted that the land under Exbt.3 was also situated within
Mouja-Charipara and therefore, even if it was not reflected in the
map, same could be relied upon to determine the market value as
per the provisions of the Act of 2013. However, he admitted that
Exbt.3 was a roadside land unlike the lands under Exbt.B and
Exbt.D. Learned counsel, also argued that Requiring Department
despite having got the opportunity did not produce any evidence to
support their counter statement and the sole witness of the Land
Acquisition Collector also admitted in his cross-examination that he
did not have any personal knowledge about the acquired land and
therefore his evidence was not reliable. Further said witness
admitted that the sale exemplars relied upon by him were not
even reflected in the counter statement of Land Acquisition
Collector and suddenly in surprise those were brought into
evidence.
[8] From the impugned judgment, it appears that Ld.
Authority gave description of 2(two) tabular charts therein
demonstrating the details of the sale exemplars that were proved
both from the sides and for purposeful reference both the charts
are reflected below:
Table-1(Exhibited Sale deeds and map)
Sl. Exhibit Sale Type/Class Quantum Value (Rs.) Rate Per kani
No. Deed/Map of Land of Land
No.
1. Ext. 1 Sale Deed Bastu 0.030 acre 3,00,000/- 40,00,000/-
No.1-
1728,dated
22.03.2013
2. Ext. 2 Sale Deed Bastu 0.010 acre 5,00,000/- 2,00,00,000/-
No.1-
1729,dated
22.03.2013
3. Ext.3 Sale Deed Nal 0.060 acre 4,50,000/- 30,00,000/-
No.1-
1609,dated
22.08.2014
4. Ext. 4 Sale Deed Chara(Tilla) 0.050 acre 6,00,000/- 48,00,000/-
No.1- 57,dated
04.01.2017
Table-2 (Exhibited Sale deeds of L.A.Collector)
Sl. Exhibit Sale Deed Type/Class Quantum Rate Per Value (Rs.)
of Land of Land Kani
No. Nos.
1. Ext. A Sale Deed No.1- Bagan(Tilla), 0.140 acre Rs. 1.5 Lakh Rs.40,000/-
3185, dated Chara(Tilla)
[ Acutally
08.04.2016 &
would be
Bastu(Tilla)
Rs.1,14,285/-
]
2. Ext.B Sale Deed No.1- Nal 0.200 acre Rs. 1.60 Lakh Rs.80,000/-
4537, dated
13.05.2016
3. Ext. C Sale Deed No.1- Tilla 0.040 acre Rs.3 Lakh Rs.30,000/-
7952, dated
10.09.2015
4. Ext. D Sale Deed No.1- Nal 0.310 acre Rs.1.3 Lakhs Rs.1,00,000/-
0405, dated
21.01.2014
5. Ext. E Sale Deed No.1- Tilla/Chara 0.030 acre Rs.4 Lakh Rs.30,000/-
647, dated
(Nal)
13.03.2014
6. Ext.F Sale Deed No.1- Nal 0.630 acre Rs.1.77 Lakh Rs.2,80,000/-
1756, dated say Rs.1.8
13.03.2014 Lakhs
[9] The legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a self
contained procedure under the provision of Section 26 of the Act of
2013 for determination of compensation which is different from the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The manner of
assessment by the Collector or by the Authority under the Act of
2013 has been elaborated in another decision of this Court in the
case of The Deputy Chief Engineer(Construction-1), N.F.
Railway vs. Smt. Sandhya Rani Deb & Ors. (L.A. App. No.28
of 2023 decided on 25.01.2024 with CO(FA) No.10 of 2023) and
for useful reference relevant portion of the said judgment is
quoted herein below:
"12. Before re-appreciating the evidence on record and
the observations made by the authority, the basic principles
underlying in the Act for determination of market value of
land, are required to be referred to. Sub-Section (1) of
Section 26 of the Act, therefore, is reproduced bellow:-
"26. Determination of market value of land by
Collector:-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in
assessing and determining the market value of the
land, namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the
registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as
the case may be, in the area, where the land is
situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity
area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed
upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of
acquisition of lands for private companies or for
public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher :
Provided that the date for determination of market
value shall be the date on which the notification has
been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1- The average sale price referred to in
clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale
deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type
of area in the near village or near vicinity area during
immediately preceding three years of the year in which
such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2- For determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total
number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which
the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken
into account.
Explanation 3- While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as
compensation for land acquired under the provisions of
this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be
taken into consideration.
Explanation 4- While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid which in the
opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual
prevailing market value may be discounted for the
purposes of calculating market value."
13. To determine the compensation basing on the sale
exemplars, the provision, therefore enumerates that the
average sale price for a similar type (emphasis laid) of land
situated in the near village or near vicinity area should be
taken into consideration. Therefore, the land under sale
exemplar, even if not situated in the same village of the
acquired land, is also permitted to be taken into
consideration. Explanation 2 of Section 26 further stipulates
that one-half of the total number of the sale deeds shall be
taken into account in which the highest sale price (emphasis
laid) has been demonstrated.
14. The provision of Section 26 further cast a duty on the
Collector to consider the sale price of similar type of land.
The words „similar type‟ cannot be equated with the words
„same type‟. As per Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary,
8th Edition, the word „same‟ denotes „exactly the one or ones
referred to or mentioned‟ whereas, the word „similar‟ means
„like but not exactly the same‟.
15. Explanation No.1 provides that the sale transactions
or agreement to sale of similar types of area of preceding
three years should be taken into consideration, and the same
may be made the basis for determining such compensation
after taking average sale price of one-half of the total
number of sale deeds or sale agreements which were on
highest side. The words „similar type of area‟ as mentioned in
Explanation 1 do not confine only to take into consideration
of the sale exemplars involving similar quantity of land, like
the quantity of the acquired land. Otherwise, on many
occasions, it may not be possible for the acquiring authority
to collect such types of sale exemplars having similarity with
both class and quantity of the acquired land.
[10] Now, from the chart as mentioned above in Paragraph 8
it appears that one sale exemplar (Exbt.3) from the side of
claimants and three sale exemplars (Exbt.B, Exbt.D and Exbt.F)
from the side of Land Acquisition Collector were proved regarding
Nal class of land. All the said sale exemplars are of Mouja-
Charipara and out of these four sale exemplars, all the sale
exemplars except Exbt.D were executed within 3(three) years
preceding the date of notification. Exbt.D being executed prior to
3(three) years, is therefore kept out of consideration. Now out of
said three sale exemplars i.e. Exbt.3, Exbt.B and Exbt.F, the deeds
under Exbt.3 and Exbt.F carry higher value than Exbt.B and
therefore said Exbt.3 and Exbt.F are taken into consideration as
50% of the sale exemplars of higher value. Now, if average of
consideration price of Exbt.3 and Exbt.F are taken into count, the
value comes to be (Rs.30,00,000/- + Rs.1,80,000/-)÷2
=Rs.15,90,000/- per kani rounded off to Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani
whereas Ld. Authority has awarded compensation @ Rs.9,90,000/-
per kani. In L.A. Appeal No.22 of 2022 in between Majida Begam
vs. The Deputy Chief Engineer,(Con), Agartala, N.F. Railway
and Anr. also, as relied upon by the claimants, this Court
determined compensation at the similar rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per
kani regarding Nal class of land acquired under the same project.
[11] From the impugned award as passed by the Ld.
Authority, it appears that while appreciating the sale exemplars,
Ld. Authority has been swayed away by the provisions of Act of
1894 and without coming to any specific finding that Exbt.3 was
not demonstrating the actual market price, has arbitrarily
deducted 40% of the sale price of Exbt.3 just on the ground that it
was having higher potential value and was of small size. Ld.
Authority has also relied on some decisions of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court which were decided in the light of relevant
provisions of the Act of 1894. Even the points as raised from the
side of the Requiring Department during hearing were also in the
line of principles as enunciated in Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
[12] The Preamble of the Act of 2013 speaks of providing
just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land
have been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by
such acquisition and to make adequate provision for such affected
persons for their Rehabilitation and Resettlement with
accumulative outcome of such compulsory acquisition that the
affected persons or the land losers also become partners in
development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition
social and economic status. In the statement of objects and
reasons of the Act also, it is reflected that one of the core
legislative intent behind legislation of such Act, is to ensure
comprehensive compensation package for the land owners and a
scientific method for calculation of market value of the land. The
intention of the legislature for providing adequate compensation in
a just and proper manner is also further evident in a different
provisions of the Act by incorporating 100% solatium in place of
30% solatium, further multiplication of the compensation by
multiplier within the range of 1 to 2, consideration of sale
exemplars carrying highest sale price in the locality etc. and
therefore, it is incumbent upon all the stake holders to ensure that
such legislative intent is duly implemented through proper
application of different provisions of the Act. Trend of looking for
sale exemplar of comparatively lesser sale price or to reduce the
value of consideration price of any sale exemplar on different
grounds other than as provided in the Act are, therefore, not
logical and rational.
[13] Considering the above, the L.A. Appeal No.31 of 2023 is
dismissed and CO (FA) No.11 of 2023 is allowed. The value of the
acquired land is determined @ Rs.16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen
lakhs) per kani. The claimant-cross objectors are, therefore,
entitled to get compensation for the land at the above said rate
and along with the same, they will be entitled to get further
compensation by multiplying such land value with the factor 1.5,
100% solatium and additional compensation/interest under
Sections 29, 69 and 72 of the Act as awarded by the Authority. In
addition, a cost of Rs.1000/-, as awarded by the Authority, will
also be paid by the Land Acquisition Collector to the claimants.
Both the appeal and cross-objection are accordingly
disposed of.
Interim application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI Digitally signed by
SATABDI DUTTA
DUTTA Date: 2024.08.16
16:28:13 +05'30'
Dinashree
