Tripura High Court
The Airports Authority Of India vs Shri Adhir Chandra Datta on 21 June, 2018
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. 07 of 2015
The Airports Authority of India,
Represented by the Airport Director,
Agartala Airport, West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Adhir Chandra Datta
S/o Late Anath Datta
Vill : Lankapura, P.S. Airport,
District: West Tripura, 799009.
..........Respondent(s)
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Government of Tripura, West Tripura, Agartala-799001.
----Proforma-Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. PK Pal, Adv
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A De, Adv.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
21/06/2018
This is an appeal under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the requiring department, the Airport Authority of India for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2014 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Misc. (LA)12 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned LA Judge enhanced the market rate of the acquired land from Rs. 40,700/- per kani, as awarded by the LA Collector to Rs.1,00,000/- per kani.
2. Heard Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Airport Authority as well as Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent.
Page 2 of 6
3. The facts relating to the filing of the present appeal is that the aforesaid misc. case was instituted by the claimant- respondent against the appellant-Airport Authority in connection with reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 against the decision of the LA Collector on compensation for the acquired land, as stated above. The case of the claimant-respondent before the LA Judge, in brief, was that the Airport Authority of India, Agartala, appellant herein, acquired 0.10 acres of bastu class of land under Khatian No. 3398, plot No. 1533 for construction of extension of Runway in the northern side of the Agartala Airport situated at Mouja Singarbil under Sadar Sub- Division, West Tripura District.
4. The claimant-respondent being dis-satisfied with the assessment of the LA Collector preferred application under Section 18 of the LA Act for reference and accordingly his application was referred before the learned LA Judge. Learned LA Judge considering the evidences of the Revenue authority as well as of the Airport Authority, enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land from Rs. 40,700/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani. In addition, the compensation was to be added with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the of the LA Act and 12% under Section 23(i)(A) of the LA Act w.e.f the date of Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. Further, the respondent was also entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of the land till one year and thereafter, 15% p.a. on the enhanced amount. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Airport Authority preferred the instant appeal. Page 3 of 6
5. Mr. Pal while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submitted that the learned LA Judge did not consider the documents including the sale instances produced by the Revenue authority, i.e. the LA Collector and even there is no mention in the judgment as to what was the basis for enhancement of the award passed by the LA Collector. He also pointed out that the learned LA Judge in Misc (LA) 12/2010 while considering the case has held:
"Very meticulously, I have considered all these materials available in my hand like the sale deeds basing on the prevailing market price since the date of Notification and accordingly, it cannot be said that the L.A. Collector did not commit any error in the increasing trend of land rate in the state awarding the compensation @ Rs.40,700/- per kani for the bastu class of land which appears to be unreasonable. It is fact that the referring claimant was not in a position to produce any cogent evidence that prevailing market price of the acquired land was more than of compensation for the acquired land.
However, considering all factors in mind including the increasing trend of land rate in the State, I am of the considered view that the claim of the referring claimant will be justified if the rate of compensation for the acquired land is enhanced from Rs.40,700/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per kani. On the other hand, I do not like to interfere with the other amounts which were awarded by the LA Collector as statutory interests and other consequential relief."
6. Referring to the aforesaid observation of the LA Judge, Mr. Pal submits that the entire judgment of the LA Judge is without any basis, rather a whimsical one. In his usual fairness, Mr. Pal submits that in some of the cases the LA Collector produced sale instances of Rs. 35,000/- per kani to Rs. 85,700/- per kani. Even if the average of those sale instances is taken into consideration then also it would not be more than 60,000/- per kani.
7. On the other hand, Mr. De while supporting the judgment of the LA Judge in the aforesaid Misc. (LA) case Page 4 of 6 submits that the land which was acquired is near to the Airport which is a developed area and without this land the construction of the runway on the northern side of the airport is also not possible. More so, the land is of Bastu class of land, though he admitted that no such document was exhibited by the claimant- respondent in support of his claim. According to him, even if the market rate decided by the learned LA Judge is considered to be on the higher side then also the same cannot be lesser than Rs. 70,000/- per kani as the sale instances produced by the LA Collector were of Rs. 85,700/- per kani and after deduction of the development cost the same should not be lesser than Rs. 70,000/- per kani.
8. This Court has gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the impugned judgment. At the time of determining the market value relating to an acquired land, the proximity of time relating to sale deed produced by the parties and the proximity of land involved in the sale deed as well as the land acquired for the project are the material consideration for identifying the comparable sale instances out of genuine instances and a court is to give preference to so far the sale instances of adjacent land in comparison to sale instances of land situated far away from the acquired land.
9. The rate of small piece of land shown in the sale instances cannot be compared to acquisition of large area of land. In the instant case, land acquired for the purpose of construction of extension of runway in the northern side of the Agartala Airport is in fact a large area of land. Thus, the sale Page 5 of 6 instances produced by the respondent-claimants though not exhibited are beyond the scope of any consideration.
10. In the other Misc. (LA) Cases where the land was acquired for the same purpose, it appears that the learned LA Judge has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per kani for the lunga class of land. If the compensation for lunga class of land is Rs. 50,000/- per kani, then, the compensation for Bastu class of land would obviously be on the higher side and according to this Court, Mr. De has fairly submitted that Rs. 70,000/- per kani would be the proper market value of the land to which Mr. Pal did not disagree.
11. In Kanta Devi & Ors V. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 3107 the Apex Court held that to determine the market value for the purposes of compensation, deduction of development charges is normally 1/3rd of the market value which is also required to be taken into consideration on the nature of land acquired. In the said case, relying upon the sale price of a small plot, the High Court had fixed the market value of the acquired land, but deducted 70% therefrom towards development charges to make the land suitable for the purpose for which the land had been acquired. But the Apex Court held that since the land was adjacent to the village Abadi which was already developed, the deduction of 60% of the market value would be reasonable. In the instant case, the land which is acquired for the purpose of construction of the runway is adjacent to the Bangladesh Border and for developing the said land for the purpose of construction of runway there would be Page 6 of 6 some expenditure which cannot be less than 1/3rd of the market value
12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, particularly keeping in mind that the learned L.A. Judge did not consider the Sale deeds produced by the parties and the whole award was passed whimsically without any reasonable basis, and when there is no doubt that in some LA cases, guess work is permissible to meet justice if the market value cannot be determined on the basis of the sale instances, it is necessary for this Court to modify the award passed by the learned LA Judge from Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani to Rs. 70,000/- per kani along with all other interest and statutory benefits as provided by the learned LA Judge. Accordingly, it is ordered.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Send down the lower court records.
JUDGE lodh