Tripura High Court
The Executive Officer vs Sri Biswajit Modak on 1 February, 2024
Page 1 of 13
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L. A. App. No.40 of 2023 & L. A. App. No.41 of 2023
1. L. A. App. No.40 of 2023.
1. The Executive Officer,
Tripura Housing & Construction Board,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO- New Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura,
PIN-799006
...............Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sri Biswajit Modak,
S/O- Paresh Modak,
Of Renters Colony, Anandanagar,
P.O.- Anandanagar,
P.S.- East Agartala, PIN-799004.
District:- West Tripura.
...............claimant-respondent.
2. L.A. Collector, West Tripura,
Office of the DM & Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala, PIN-799001.
...........OP-respondent.
2. L. A. App. No.41 of 2023.
1. The Executive Officer,
Tripura Housing & Construction Board,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO- New Kunjaban,
PS-New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura,
PIN-799006
............... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sri Satyajit Modak,
S/O- Paresh Modak,
Of Renters Colony, Anandanagar,
P.O.- Anandanagar,
P.S.- East Agartala, PIN-799004.
District:- West Tripura.
.............claimant-respondent.
2. L.A. Collector, West Tripura,
Office of the DM & Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala, PIN-799001.
............OP-respondent.
Page 2 of 13
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
: Ms. D. Sengupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
: Mr. P. Debnath, Advocate.
: Mr. S. Noatia, Advocate.
: Mr. P. S. Roy, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 11/01/2024
Date of judgment : 01/02/2024
Whether fit for reporting: No.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
_J_ U_ D_ G_ M_E_N_T_
S. Datta Purkayastha, J.
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common
judgment, inasmuch as the lands in both the appeals were
acquired from a common plot for common purposes by a common
notification. Respondent No.1 in both the appeals are two brothers
and vide notification bearing No.F.9(9)-REV/ACQ/XIV/07 dated
12/09/2007, an area of 0.40 acres of land respectively from each
brother was acquired from plot No.301/p for the purpose of
construction of housing flats at Sreenagar, Anandanagar (Near By
pass road at Malaynagar) under Bishalgarh Sub-Division in West
Tripura District.
[2] The respondent No.2, L.A. Collector in both the appeals
determined compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.12,60,000/-
(Rupees twelve lakh sixty thousand) only per kani. On reference,
learned L.A. Judge enhanced the same and determined the land
valuation @ Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakh) only per kani. In
both the proceedings, 5(five) nos. of sale exemplars from claimant
and one sale exemplar from the side of L.A. Collector were proved
into evidence.
[3] While determining the compensation for the land,
learned L.A. Judge did not rely upon any of the sale exemplars
proved by either party, rather based it's decision relying on the
award passed in Misc. (L.A.) 34 of 2015 by L.A. Judge. A common
observation was made in para No.11 of both the impugned awards
passed by the L.A. Judge which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"11. In Misc. L.A. 34 of 2015 for a less potential
land situated in much more backward position than the
acquired land of this case, the market price was fixed
@ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. So, market price for the
acquired land of this case can be fixed and assessed
@ Rs.30,00,000/- per kani.
Hence, both the issues are decided in favour of
the referring claimant."
[4] The L.A. Judge has thereby decided the compensation
@ Rs.30,000,00/-(Rupees thirty lakh) only per kani in both the
cases along with the benefits of 30% solatium and other statutory
relief/interests. Being dissatisfied thereby the appellant has
preferred both the appeals.
[5] At the very outset, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the award
passed in said Misc. (L.A.) No.34 of 2015 as was relied upon by
the trial court in passing the impugned awards, was set-aside by
the High Court in L.A. App. No.14 of 2020 while deciding
analogously with L.A. App. No.7 of 2021 and L.A. App. No.15 of
2020 and the matter was remanded to the trial court again for
fresh decision in the following terms:
" 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing
the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that
this instant appeal is liable to be remanded back since
the enhancement from Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight
lakhs) per kani to Rs.14,00,000/-(Rupees fourteen
lakhs) per kani and via media fixing it to Rs.12,00,000/-
(Rupees twelve lakhs) per kani is unreasoned. It is
relevant to note that Exbt-4, i.e. a sale deed wherein the
valuation of the land is given at Rs.14,00,000/- per kani,
is made after the said notification is issued. Exbt-F, i.e.
another sale deed wherein the value of the land is given
at Rs.8,00,000/- per kani is of the year 2006. So the
order passed by the Court below is not supported by any
reason, only guesswork has been made, since the
guesswork is under challenge, this Court feels that
proper reasoning could have been given. Hence the
matter is remanded back.
9. So in view of the above, all these 3(three)
appeals are remanded back to the Court of the learned
L.A. Judge for fresh adjudication of the matters
individually/separately within a period of 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The
parties concerned are also directed to cooperate with the
Court below for the disposal of the matter within the
aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the parties is also
at liberty to file a certified copy of this order before the
Court below.
10. Accordingly, all these 3(three) appeals are
disposed of Consequently, pending application(s), if any
also stands closed."
[6] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant,
therefore, insisted for remanding the present two appeals to the
L.A. Judge in consonance with the orders passed in said three
appeals by the High Court and also further submitted that out of
total 9 cases under the same project 7 cases were already
remanded back to the court below for fresh decision. On merit of
the cases, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel argued that though
the court below relied on the award passed in Misc.(L.A.) 34 of
2015 but already at that time the appeal challenging the said
award was filed before the High Court and therefore, the L.A.
Judge ought not to have relied upon said award, however, he also
submits that it might not be within the knowledge of the court
below that appeal was pending before High Court.
[ 7 ] According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel,
all the sale exemplars except Exbt.1 and Exbt.8, as relied upon by
the claimant, were executed after the notification for the
acquisition was published and, therefore, those sale exemplars
cannot be taken into consideration. In continuation of his
submission, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel referred Exbt.1 to
indicate that the same was also not reliable document, for, it was
executed only one month prior to the date of notification.
Regarding Exbt.8, he contended that the land involved in the said
sale exemplar was superior in quality than the acquired land i.e. of
Bastu class which, as per the assessment note of L.A. Collector,
was only 250 feet away from the acquired plot and the transaction
took place in said deed was @ Rs.20,000,00/- (Rupees twenty
lakh) only per kani, but that despite the same, the L.A. Judge has
awarded compensation for the lands involved in the present
appeals @ Rs.30,000,00/-(Rupees thirty lakh) only per kani.
According to Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel the acquired
lands were required to be further developed for the construction of
housing flats therein but learned L.A. Judge failed to take notice of
all these facts and granted an exorbitant amount of compensation.
[8] Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, learned counsel also referred
a decision between CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
Versus THAKUR DWARA KALAN UI-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA
(DEED) & ORS. in 2023 Legal Eagle (SC) 1039 of the
Supreme Court of India submitting that in case, the method of
determining the compensation is based on annual increase, at best
8% annual increase can be taken into consideration.
[9] Mr. P. S. Roy, learned counsel representing the L.A.
Collector also made similar submission.
[ 10 ] Mr. P. Debnath, learned counsel for claimant-
respondents, strongly contended that the lands involved in both
the appeals were adjacent to a big motorable road having high
potential value and location of the lands involved in these present
appeals was more advantageous in location than the lands
involved in Misc.(L.A.) 34 of 2015 and Misc.(L.A.) 36 of 2015.
Referring to the cross-examination of the claimants in both the
cases, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel, argued that not a single
question was put from the side of the appellants to make Exbt.8
unreliable, and therefore, the appellant could not argue now that
Exbt.8 was not reliable and even the appellant did not adduce any
evidence in both the abovesaid proceedings before the trial court.
Therefore, according to Mr. Debnath, learned counsel, the L.A.
Judge was completely justified in awarding the compensation @
Rs.30,000,00/-(Rupees thirty lakh) only per kani considering the
better location and higher potentiality of the land involved in these
appeals. Mr. Debnath, strongly opposed the submission of the Ld.
Counsel of the appellant regarding remand of the cases.
[ 11 ] Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel who
was also representing the respondent-claimants relied on a
decision of this Court in the case of THE IN-CHARGE, HR-IR
ONGC LTD. Vs. ABDUL LATIF AND OTHERS (L.A. App. No.30 of
2020 decided on 07.01.2022) wherein it was observed that in
absence of any evidence being led to the contrary by the appellant
the assertion made on behalf of the appellant that the sale deed
under Exbt.1 could not be relied upon by the L.A. Collector or the
L.A. Judge, cannot be entertained. Although, it was claimed by the
appellant in that case that the land was not identical, yet the onus
was on the appellant to bring on record to establish the said fact.
Learned counsel also referred another decision of the Apex Court
in TRISHALA JAIN AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF
UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 6 SCC
47/2011 STPL 18698 SC and the relevant portions of the
judgment as referred are extracted below:
" .......
56. More often than not, it is not possible to fix
the compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court may have to take recourse to some guesswork
while determining the fair market value of the land and
the consequential amount of compensation that is
required to be paid to the persons interested in the
acquired land.
57. "Guess" as understood in its common parlance
is an estimate without any specific information while
"calculations" are always made with reference to specific
data. "Guesstimate" is an estimate based on a mixture of
guesswork and calculations and it is a process in itself.
At the same time "guess" cannot be treated synonymous
to "conjecture". "Guess" by itself may be a statement or
result based on unknown factors while "conjecture" is
made with a very slight amount of knowledge, which is
just sufficient to incline the scale of probability.
"Guesstimate" is with higher certainty than mere "guess"
or a "conjecture" per se.
58. The concept of "guesswork" is not unknown to
various fields of law. It has been applied in cases relating
to insurance, taxation, compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act as well as under the Labour Laws. All that is
required from a Court is that such guesswork has to be
used with greater element of caution and within the
determinants of law declared by the legislature or by the
Courts from time to time.
. . . . . . ..."
[ 12 ] So far as the remand of the cases to the L.A. Judge as
insisted by the learned counsel of the appellant is concerned, this
court is of the view that the L.A. appeal No.14 of 2020 arising out
of Misc. (L.A.) 34 of 2015 along with other 2(two) cases were
remanded to the L.A. Judge for fresh decision for different reason.
In the case in hand the L.A. Judge except relying on the award
passed in L.A. 34 of 2015 did not make any discussion on the sale
exemplars as were proved from both the sides and referring to the
award passed in said Misc. (L.A.) 34 of 2015, based it's decision
and disposed of both the instant cases by fixing the compensation
of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakh) only per kani i.e. by
enhancing Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh) only per kani more
above the award as was passed in said Misc. (L.A.) 34 of 2015.
When the said award passed in Misc. (L.A.) 34 of 2015 has been
set aside by the High Court, automatically the impugned awards
are also liable to be set aside. However, the sale exemplars and
map etc. as proved by the parties are already on record, this court
proceeds to decide both the appeals on merit without remanding
the same.
[ 13 ] The date of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act in
both the cases was issued on 12/09/2007. For useful reference,
the summary of sale exemplars as proved from both the claimant
and the L.A. Collector are demonstrated in the pictorial chart
below :
Sale Deeds relied upon by claimant in both the cases
Sl Mouja Exbts. Deed No. Involve Class Area sold Value Value per Distance from
. with date d Plot of Kani acquired land
N No. land as per
o. assessment
note.
820 feet (Near
to the 2nd
unit) and as
Anan 2(two)
per boundary
da No.1-2617 gandas
description, it
1. nagar Exbt.1 Dt.17.08.2 423/9145 Nal 11 Rs.1,54,000/- Rs.15,05,500/-
No.1/ is situated
007 (eleven)
P adjacent to
dhurs
Ananda Nagar
Takarjala
road.
No
information
furnished by
L.A.Collector,
however, as
No.1-977
Exbt.2 5585 Viti, 2(two) per boundary
2. -do- Dt.02.02.2 Rs.50,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
Tilla gandas description,
the land is
situated
adjacent to
Agartala
Gabordi Road
215, Bastu No
No.967 203/9777, (Tilla) information
219/9776, , 04 (four)
3. -do- Exbt.3 Dt.10/06/2 Rs.3,50,000/- Rs.35,00,000/- furnished by
219/9232, Chara decimal
010 AD. 219/9234, and L.A.Collector.
220/9236 Tilla
On the
proposed
No.1-3317
04(four) acquired land.
4. -do- Exbt.4 Dt. 17/10/ 296,297 Tilla Rs.14,00,000/-
decimal Rs.1,40,000/- (on the 2nd
2007 AD.
unit)
250 feet (near
1st unit). As
214/9111, per boundary
No.1-6555 216/9113,
02(two) description,
5. -do- Exbt.8 Dt.08/06/2 217/9112 Bastu Rs.50,000/- Rs.20,00,000/-
karas there are two
006 AD.
roads on two
sides of the
land
Sale Deeds relied upon by L A Collector
On the
Anan proposed
01(one)
da No.1-7062 acquired
222/971 ganda
6. nagar Exbt.A Dt.19/06/2 Nal Rs.75,000/- Rs.12,00,000/- land (on the
9 01(one)
No.1/ 006 AD. 1st unit) and
P kara
adjacent to
bypass road.
[ 14 ] As per the assessment note, the L.A. Collector divided
the total acquired plots into two groups i.e. unit-1 & unit-2
considering the development of that area and the 1st unit lands
cover the more valuable land than the 2nd unit lands which are
situated just behind the lands of 1st unit on the Southern side. It is
also observed by L.A. Collector that the 1st unit lands cover the
lands having access to the main road, whereas, the 2nd unit lands
do not possess such facility. The lands involved in the present
cases fall within 1st unit and thus the acquired plots are more
valuable having situated adjacent to Kayerpur-Amtali Bypass road
or within the area of 150 feet from that road as indicated by L.A.
Collector.
[ 15 ] Out of above said 6(six) sale exemplars, as proved by
the parties, Exbt.3 & Exbt.4 were issued after the notification of
the acquisition was issued. The land under Exbt.1 is of Nal class of
land like the acquired land and same, was sold @ Rs.15,05,500/-
(Rupees fifteen lakh five thousand and five hundred) only per kani.
That land is situated near Anandanagar - Takarjala road. There is
no indication of the involved plot under Exbt.1 in the trace map
(Exbt.5) which at the first blush creates an impression that the
land of Exbt.1 was not closer to the acquired land but the L.A.
Collector has shown the distance of said plot to be only 820 feet
from acquired land. The land under Exbt.2 is of Viti/Tilla class,
situated near Agartala - Takarjala road and it demonstrates a
transaction of the year 2002, whereas, the acquisition was of 2007
AD. However, the L.A. Collector in the assessment note has not
mentioned the distance of said plot from acquired land. As it
appears from above said assessment note, for the said project
total 13.71 acre of land under Mouja Anandanagar was acquired
and the acquired land was situated near Malaynagar, adjacent to
Khayerpur - Amtali bypass road, and Agartala - Anandanagar road
also passes through at a distance of 0.3 km away from the
acquired land.
[ 16 ] Exbt.5 also demonstrates sale of a very small quantity
of Bastu class of land i.e. 2 karas of land for Rs.20,00,000/- and
the same is situated within 250 feet near the 1st unit land and said
land is having road connectivity on two sides. Land under Exbt.A
shows the sale of Nal class of land of 01(one) ganda 01(one) kara
for Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand) only i.e.
Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh) only per kani and the same is
situated inside the 1st unit acquired land but the transaction took
place on 19/06/2006 i.e. more than 1 year prior to the acquisition.
[ 17 ] On consideration of all the sale exemplars, only land
under Exbt.1 and Exbt.A appears to be the Nal class of land i.e.,
similar to the acquired plots, and there is time gap between the
execution or sale deed under Exbt.A and the acquisition, so at the
time of such acquisition, certainly there was some escalation of
price in that locality and such escalation can be evident from
Exbt.1 which was executed only about 25(twenty five) days prior
to the notification, having the transaction @ Rs.15,05,500/-
(Rupees fifteen lakh five thousand and five hundred) only per kani.
The land in Exbt.1 is comparatively of small quantity than the
acquired land. However, the high potentiality of acquired land has
been reflected in the assessment note of the L.A. Collector wherein
the Collector has kept the plot within the category of 1st unit of
acquired land. Exbt.A also contains a smaller quantity than land
under Exbt.1, and, in fact, the said land is also situated within the
category of 1st unit of the acquired lands. There is nothing to
indicate that some artificial transactions were made to fetch higher
compensation for the acquisition. Increase of value of the land
from Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakh) only per kani to
Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh) only per kani within that
locality appears to be not unlikely considering the location of the
acquired lands. Therefore, mainly relying as Exbt.1, value of the
acquired land is determined @ Rs.15,00,000/- per kani.
[ 18 ] In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The
claimants in both the cases will get compensation for the lands @
Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh) only per kani. Apart there
from they will also get 30% solatium along with additional
compensation/interest as granted by the L.A. Judge under Sections
23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the L.A. Act.
Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment.
JUDGE
RUDRADEEP BANERJEE BANERJEE
Date: 2024.02.02 17:30:29 +05'30'
Riki
