Tripura High Court
Smt. Jonaki Biswas (Sen) vs The Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) on 30 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A.APP.No.28 of 2024
Smt. Jonaki Biswas (Sen),
wife of Shri Rakhal Chandra Sen,
resident of Sabroom, P.S. Sabroom,
P.O. Sabroom, District-South Tripura,
PIN-799145
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction),
N.F. Railway, Badharghat Railway Station,
P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S. Amtali,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799003
2. Land Acquisition Collector,
South Tripura, Belonia,
Office of the D.M. and Collector,
P.O. & P.S. Belonia, District-South Tripura,
PIN-799155
---- OP/Respondent (s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment & Order : 30.09.2024
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and award
dated 26.07.2018 delivered by Learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in
connection with Case No.L.A.(Ref.)53 of 2015. By the said judgment, Learned
L.A. Judge has determined the value of the land @ Rs.1,24,000/- per kani
along with other benefits.
[2] Heard Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as Mr. B. Majumder, Learned DSGI appearing for the
respondent No.1.
[3] In course of hearing of argument, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee,
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the approach of
the present appellant, the Learned L.A. Collector made the reference under
Section 18 of L.A. Act before the Learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia
for appropriate and just compensation in view of the fact that at the time of
acquisition of land, the market value of the acquired land was more than what
was determined by the L.A. Collector. But the Learned L.A. Judge also failed to
construe the documents submitted on behalf of the appellant claimant and
assessed the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.1,24,000/- per kani which
was too less and for that, this present appeal was preferred.
[4] In course of hearing of argument, Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant drawn the attention of the Court that before the Learned L.A.
Judge, the present appellant relied upon the exemplar deeds No.1-279 and 1-
291 of the year 2010 which were adjacent to the acquired land. But the
Learned L.A. Judge did not consider those documents and determined the
market price of the acquired land @ Rs.1,24,000/- per kani.
[5] Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
admittedly before the Learned L.A. Judge, the appellant could not submit any
trace map to show the location of the acquired land and the land of the
exemplar deeds as referred above for which the appellant has filed another
application under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of CPC for permitting the appellant
to adduce additional evidence.
[6] So, in summing up, Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that if the prayer of the appellant is not allowed and the judgment and award
of the Learned L.A. Judge is not set aside than the appellant would be seriously
prejudiced.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. B. Majumder, Learned DSGI appearing for
the respondent No.1 submitted that based on the relevant exemplar deeds, the
L.A. Collector and thereafter the Learned L.A. Judge determined the market
price of the acquired land @ Rs.1,24,000/- per kani and there is no infirmity in
the judgment of the Learned L.A. Judge and submitted that at this stage, there
is no scope to entertain the application filed by the appellant and urged for
dismissal of this appeal with costs.
[8] The present appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 54
of L.A. Act. The gist of the case filed by the appellant is that the L.A. Collector
for the purpose of construction of Railway line acquired land measuring 0.80
acres of land belonging to the present appellant of Khatian No.1913
appertaining to C.S. Plot No.5750 classified as Janga(Tilla) Mouja West Jalafa,
Sub-Division-Sabroom vide notification No.F.9(04)-REV-ACQ/XIII/2012 dated
31.10.2012 and the L.A. Collector assessed the value of the acquired land @
Rs.78,000/- per kani for Jangal(Tilla) class of land. The referring-claimant i.e.
the appellant being dissatisfied with the award of the L.A. Collector filed an
application for referring the same to the L.A. Judge under Section 18 of the
L.A. Act and accordingly the reference was made.
[9] Before the Learned L.A. Judge, the referring-claimant submitted
claim statement and the requiring department i.e. the respondent No.1 herein
submitted the counter statement and the L.A. Collector also submitted counter
statement denying the entire assertions of the referring- claimant in the claim
statement. The referring-claimant claimed compensation for the acquired land
@ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. The respondent No.1 as the requiring department
and the L.A. Collector as respondent No.2 before the Learned L.A. Judge took
the plea that considering the nature of the land, the L.A. Collector rightly
determined the amount of compensation because the acquired land had no
potential value and huge amount was required for the purpose of development
of the said land. Admittedly, before the Learned L.A. Judge, the appellant
relied upon sale deed No.1-279 and sale deed No.1-291 of the year 2010
under same Mouja. But as the said quantum of land involved in those deeds
were very less, so, the Learned L.A. Judge took the plea that the small piece of
land cannot be the basis for determination of the value of the large tract of
land and the claimant-appellant could not produce the trace map before the
Learned L.A. Judge.
[10] In course of hearing of argument, Learned counsel for the
appellant referred few citations which are discussed herein below :
In Nelson Fernandes and Ors. versus Special Land
Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.25 observed as under :
"25. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally
1/3 deduction of further amount of compensation has been
directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the
land acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the
instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of
new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali
Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 SCC 422
and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had
noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes
deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In
the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line.
Therefore, the question of development thereof would not
arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable
to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic
amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply,
electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry,
telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of
compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs. 250/- per sq.
mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be
entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium,
interest etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to
compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum
of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is
ordered as prayed for."
Learned counsel for the appellant referred another citation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lal Chand versus Union of India & Anr.
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 where the Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos.30,
33, 34 & 35 has observed as under :
"30. This takes us to the value of "undervalued" sale deeds.
When the respondents rely upon certain sale deeds to justify
the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector or to
show that the market value was less than what is claimed by
the claimants, and if the claimants produce satisfactory
evidence (which may be either with reference to
contemporaneous sale deeds or awards made in respect of
acquisition of comparable land or by other acceptable
evidence) to show that the market value was much higher, the
sale deed relied upon by the respondents showing a lesser
value may be inferred to be undervalued, or not showing the
true value. Such deeds have to be excluded from consideration
as being unreliable evidence. A document which is found to be
undervalued cannot be used as evidence.
33. The sale transactions under Ex. A1 to A3 and A10 to A13
relate to plots used for residential or other non-agricultural
purposes. Though these sale deeds describe the lands sold as
agricultural lands, having regard to the prevailing land
reforms laws, the size of the plots show that they were not
used for agricultural purposes. For example, two of the sale
deeds - Exs. A10 and A11, relate to 7 biswas of land each
(about 350 sq. yds. each) and the purchaser is a business firm
(M/s. Sant & Co.). Obviously, the land was not sold for
agricultural purpose, as it is not possible to imagine plots
measuring only 350 sq. yards being sold for agricultural
purposes. Significantly, the other sale deeds, each of which
relate to an area of one bigha and show a price of Rs.35000/-
per bigha (three deeds) and Rs.49000/- per bigha (two
deeds). It is evident the plots which were the subject matter
of these sale deeds were sold as semi-urban land for
residential or other non-residential purposes. There is no
evidence or material to show that they were nominal or sham
documents intended to create evidence of a higher market
value. The variation in price between Rs.35000 to Rs.68571
may possibly be on account of several factors. It is possible
that some plots were nearer while others were far away from
roads or developed areas. In the absence of the evidence of
vendors/vendees of these documents, we propose to take
average of these transactions, which is approximately
Rs.50,790/- per bigha, as the market value of small plots sold
for residential or non- agricultural purposes.
34. But when the market value of such small plots intended
for non- agricultural purposes is made the basis for
determining the market value of large tracts of agricultural
lands, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction
towards `development' factor. The evidence shows that the
acquired lands were at the relevant time (1981) in a rural
area on the outskirts of Delhi, with access to roads and
services nearby. In fact the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
within a few months after the acquisition, issued a notification
dated 23/4/1982, under section 507(a) of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 declaring that Rithala in the northern
zone of Delhi shall cease to be a rural area. The appellants
have also let in evidence to show that the acquired lands were
situated in an area having a potential for development for
residential use. The policy resolution dated 27.12.1980 of
Delhi Development Authority in regard to development of
Zones H7 and H8 (Rohini Scheme) in North-West Delh shows
that the area was earmarked for fast urban development.
Some facilities like roads, water, electricity had reached the
area in a limited manner. Therefore, the appropriate deduction
towards development, needs to be only 40% instead of the
higher standard percentage of 60% to 70%.
35. On deduction of 40% from Rs.50790/- per bigha which the
market value of small plots, the market value for the large
tracts of lands acquired in December, 1981 would be
Rs.30,474/- (rounded off to Rs.30500/-) per bigha. As the
earlier three acquisitions were of the same year, but were in
February and March (that is on 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981 and
13.3.1981) which are about 10 to 11 months earlier, the
compensation in regard to the three earlier acquisitions is
determined as Rs.28000/- per bigha. To this extent, the award
of the High Court requires to be modified."
Similarly in Central Warehousing Corporation versus Thakur
Dwara Kalan UI-Maruf Baraglan Wala (dead) & Ors reported in 2023
(14) SCR 926 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.24 also
observed as under:
"24. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent
view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in
the present case would be best determined if we apply 8%
annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason
that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5
years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15%
would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the
High Court in the impugned order. In the present case, given
the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper."
Referring the said citation, Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that those citations are very much relevant for decision of this case
and furthermore, the observation made by the Learned L.A. Judge regarding
exemplar deed in respect of small quantum of land cannot be discarded and
furthermore, in respect of Railway Line, the concept of development would not
arise. So, the determination of the value of the acquired land as determined by
the Learned L.A. Judge was not proper.
[11] I have also gone through the certified copy of the map annexed
by the referring-claimant i.e. the appellant herein. It appears that the land of
the deeds relied upon by the appellant are adjacent to the acquired land,
although, the said document could not be produced before the Learned L.A.
Judge.
So, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also
in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforenoted cases it appears to me that the determination of the amount of
compensation made by the Learned L.A. Judge ignoring the deeds of the
appellant was not proper. So, the matters needs to be remand back to the
concerned L.A. Judge to re-determine the value of the acquired land in view of
the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore noted
cases and also to allow the appellant to adduce the certified copy of trace map
in respect of the acquired land and other connected lands so substantiate his
case properly before the Learned Trial Court.
[12] In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed.
The judgment and award dated 26.07.2018 delivered by Learned L.A. Judge,
South Tripura, Belonia in connection with Case No.L.A.(Ref.)53 of 2015 is
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Learned L.A. Judge with
a direction to allow the appellant to adduce fresh evidence both oral and
documentary in support of his claim in respect of the acquired land and also to
allow him to adduce relevant documents including trace map, if any, and also
to allow the contesting OPs to cross-examine the witnesses of the referring-
claimant, i.e. the appellant herein and to allow them to adduce their witnesses,
if any, afresh and thereafter to deliver a fresh judgment and award in
accordance with law within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt
of the copy of this judgment. Both the parties shall appear before the Learned
L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia on 05.11.2024.
The application for adducing additional evidence is accordingly
stands allowed and disposed of.
The appeal is also accordingly stands allowed.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment.
JUDGE
SABYASACHI Digitally
SABYASACHI
signed by
BHATTACHAR BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2024.09.30
JEE 15:51:49 +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
