Tripura High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Dinesh Chandra Laskar on 18 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A.APP.No.51 of 2024
1. The Executive Engineer, PWD(R & B),
Agartala Division V, Netaji Complex,
P.O. Agartala 799001, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura
2. The Land Acquisition Collector,
West Tripura District,
(represented by its Authorized Signatory)
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dinesh Chandra Laskar,
son of Brajendra Chandra Laskar
2. Sri Debasish Chandra Laskar,
son of Dinesh Chandra Laskar
3. Smti. Dipika Roy,
wife of manik Roy
4. Smti. Lipika Sarkar,
wife of Bapi Sarkar
5.Smti. Manika Saha,
wife of Kajal Saha
All are residents of Siddhi Ashram,
P.S. Amtali, District Tripura
----Respondent/OP(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H. Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment & Order : 18.09.2024
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act is preferred challenging
the judgment and award dated 29.09.2021 delivered by Learned L.A. Judge,
West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2 in connection with Case
No.Misc.(L.A.)108 of 2015.
[2] Heard Learned counsel, Mr. H. Sarkar present for the appellants
and also heard Learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee present for the
claimant-respondent.
[3] In course of hearing, Mr. H. Sarkar, Learned counsel appearing
for the appellants drawn the attention of this Court that the Learned L.A.
Judge at the time of delivery of judgment in the aforesaid case did not
consider the sale instances relied upon by the L.A. Collector at the time of
determination of compensation and without any basis has awarded the
compensation @ Rs.50,00,000/- per kani which was too high considering the
prevailing market price of the locality at the time of acquisition of land.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that before the Learned
L.A. Judge the respondent-claimant could adduce any strong materials i.e.
appropriate exemplar deeds showing higher market price of the adjacent
land of the acquired land on that relevant point of time of acquisition for
which the judgment delivered by the Learned L.A. Judge cannot be sustained
in the eye of law. So, Learned counsel for the appellants urged for
interference of this Court and prayed for allowing this appeal by setting
aside the judgment and award delivered by the Learned L.A. Judge.
[4] On the other hand, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel
appearing for the claimant-respondent submitted that 0.0300 acres of land
belonging to the respondent-claimant was acquired for the purpose of
construction of approach road from Siddhi Ashram to Agartala Bye-pass vide
notification dated 11.02.2009 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act followed by
declaration vide No.F.09(14)-REV/ACQ/XIV08 dated 13.07.2009 and the
acquired land is situated under Mouja Badharghat which is nearby the
railway station and other commercial establishments and it had good
potential value on that relevant point of time but the Learned L.A. Collector
ignoring the relevant sale instances only determined the amount of
compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani but on that relevant point of time,
the value of the acquired land was more than Rs.50,00,000/- per kani. So,
according to Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent the judgment and
award delivered by the Learned L.A. Judge was reasonable and justified and
there is no scope for interference with the award delivered by the Learned
L.A. Judge and urged for dismissal of this appeal upholding the judgment of
the Learned L.A. Judge.
[5] Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent further submitted
that as the matter is pending since long back, so, a direction may be given
to the appellants to deposit the amount to the Registry of the High Court at
an earliest convenience.
[6] In the case at hand, it appears that the L.A. Collector vide
notification dated 11.02.2009 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and
subsequent declaration vide No.F.09(14)-REV/ACQ/XIV08 dated 13.07.2009
had acquired land measuring .03 acres belonging to the referring-claimants
of khatian No.34687 appertaining to C.S. plot No.30166/p under mouja
Badharghat, Sheet No.5(4)p under Badharghat tehashil for the purpose of
construction of approach road from Siddhi Ashram to Agartala Bye-pass and
the L.A. Collector considering ten numbers of exemplar deeds determined
the value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani for 'Bastu' (Tilla)
class of land. Before the Learned L.A. Judge the referring-claimants claimed
compensation @ Rs.1,50,00,000/- per kani. According to the referring-
claimants, the acquired land was situated within the developed area of
Agartala city and it was a 'Bastu' (Tilla) class of land situated nearby Siddhi
Ashram market area Badharghat, TMC Hospital, Agartala Railway Station
etc. and it has good potential value. In addition to that the ONGC complex
was nearby the acquired land and it was adjacent to two numbers of Class-
XII schools. Furthermore, there are Telephone Exchange, Siddhi Ashram Sub
Post Office, Jute Mill etc. nearby the acquired land. From the acquired land
the distance of Agartala city was about 2 kms. only and on that relevant
point of time, the value of the acquired land was more than
Rs.1,50,00,000/- per kani but the L.A. Collector according to the referring-
claimants did not consider the same and finally determined the value of the
acquired land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. As already stated the appellants
before the Learned L.A. Judge stated that the acquired land is a 'Bastu'
(Tilla) class of land and it was an abandoned place and for that the
appellants had selected this land for the purpose of approach road. So,
according to them, the compensation determined by the L.A. Collector was
just and proper.
[7] Heard submission of both the sides and also gone through the
judgment delivered by the Learned Court below. Learned Court below at the
time of delivery of the judgment came to the conclusion that the land value
in the State of Tripura was increasing day by day and accordingly enhanced
the market value of the acquired land from Rs.20,00,000/- to
Rs.50,00,000/- per kani. Before the Learned L.A. Judge the claimant
adduced three numbers of certified copies of of sale deeds which were
marked as Exhibits as follows:
"(i) Certified copy of registered sale-deed bearing No.1-3368
dated 04.07.2008 in seven sheets [Exbt.2(i) to Exbt.2(vii)]
(ii) Certified copy of registered sale-deed bearing No.1-556
dated 30.01.2008 in seven sheets [Exbt.3(i) to Exbt.3(vii)]
(iii) Certified copy of registered sale-deed bearing No.1-5149
dated 13.07.2007 in eight sheets [Exbt.4(i) to Exbt.3(viii)]"
[8] On the other hand, the present appellants as the contesting O.Ps
relied upon seven numbers of exemplar sale deeds which were marked as
follows:
"(i) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-7948
dated 29.11.2007 in 5 sheets (Exhibit A)
(ii) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-5035
dated 08.05.2006 in 7 sheets (Exhibit B)
(iii) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-5528
dated 17.05.2006 in 7 sheets (Exhibit C)
(iv) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-5699
dated 20.05.2006 in 9 sheets (Exhibit D)
(v) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-2989
dated 08.06.2008 in 8 sheets (Exhibit E)
(vi) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-1553
dated 08.02.2007 in 4 sheets (Exhibit F)
(vii) Certified copy of registered Sale-Deed bearing No.1-12548
dated 21.11.2006 in 6 sheets (Exhibit G)"
Finally, the L.A. Collector determined the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani.
[9] On perusal of the judgment of the Learned L.A. Judge nowhere I
find that as to why the Learned L.A. Judge did not consider the sale
instances relied upon by the referring-claimants. Even no explanation was
given in this regard. But without assigning any reason, the Learned L.A.
Judge determined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.50,00,000/-
per kani which in my considered view was not proper and reasonable. So,
after perusal of the judgment of the Learned L.A. Judge it appears that the
purpose of justice would suffice if the market value of the acquired land is
determined @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani at the relevant point of time in place
of Rs.50,00,000/- as awarded by Learned L.A. Judge.
[10] In view of this, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The
market value of the acquired land is determined @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani
in place of Rs.50,00,000/- per kani along other statutory benefits as
awarded by the Learned L.A. Judge vide judgment and award dated
29.09.2021. Since the matter is long pending one, so the appellants are
hereby asked to deposit the award/compensation either to the Registry of
the High Court or to the Learned Court below within a period of 2(two)
months from the date of delivery of this judgment/award.
With these observations, the appeal is party allowed to the extent
as indicated above.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment/award.
Also furnish copy to Learned counsels of both the sides.
JUDGE
Date: 2024.09.20 17:38:56 +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
