Tripura High Court
Sri Satya Ranjan Debnath vs The Executive Engineer on 28 November, 2019
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP No.17/2018
Sri Satya Ranjan Debnath
S/O Lt. Balai Debnath
Resident of Muddapara,
P.O. - Khayerpur, P.S. - Ranirbazar,
District - Tripura West.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department (PWD),
Agartala Division No.IV,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector),
West Tripura, Agartala.
.....Respondent(s)
L.A. APP No.18/2018
1. Sri Satya Rn. Debnath
S/O Lt. Balai Debnath.
2. Smt. Purnima Debnath
W/O. Lt. Chitta Rn. Debnath.
3. Smt. Mousumi Debnath
D/O. Lt. Chitta Rn Debnath.
4. Smt. Milan Debnath
W/O. Lt. Manoranjan Debnath.
5. Smt. Rupali Debnath
W/O. Sri Kartik Debnath,
D/O. Lt. Manoranjan Debnath.
6. Sri Sanjit Debnath
S/O. Lt. Manoranjan Debnath.
7. Sri Ranjit Debnath
S/O. Lt. Manoranjan Debnath,
Resident of Muddapara,
P.O. Khayerpur, P.S. - Ranirbazar,
District - Tripura West.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Page 2 of 10
1. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department (PWD),
Agartala Division No.IV,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector),
West Tripura, Agartala.
.....Respondent(s)
L.A. APP No.19/2018
1. Smt. Purnima Debnath
W/O. Lt. Chitta Rn. Debnath.
2. Smt. Mousumi Debnath
D/O. Lt. Chitta Rn Debnath.
Resident of Muddapara,
P.O. Khayerpur, P.S. - Ranirbazar,
District - Tripura West.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department (PWD),
Agartala Division No.IV,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector),
West Tripura, Agartala.
.....Respondent(s)
L.A. APP No.99/2018
Smt. Nandabala Devi @ Debnath
(since deceased) Represented by
Sri Satya Rn. Debnath,
S/O Lt. Balai @ Balaram Debnath,
Village - Muddapara, Khayerpur,
P.S. - Ranirbazar, District - Tripura West.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department (PWD),
Agartala Division No.IV,
Agartala, West Tripura.
Presently Jirania Division, Jirania,
District Tripura West, PIN 799045.
Page 3 of 10
2. The L.A. Collector, West Tripura,
PIN 799 001.
.....Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.R. Choudhury, Advocate.
Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
Mr. D. Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.
Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.
Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Date of hearing and judgment : 28.11.2019
Whether fit for reporting : No
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
These appeals arise out of common land acquisition proceedings and challenge common award passed by the Reference Court. Evidence relied upon by both sides is common. These appeals are heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts are as under:
Appellants are the original claimants. Different parcels of lands of the same area situated in the outskirt of the city of Agartala were sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of RCC Bridge over river Howrah at Khayerpur on Chaturdash Debata Bari Temple road. Total land under acquisition was .478 acres. Notification as Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for such purpose on 24.02.1999. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15.09.1999. Land Acquisition Officer passed his award dated 11.02.2011 and awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Page 4 of 10 Rs.3,00,000/- per kani. For the purpose of convenience, I may record certain local measurements of area. 1 kara = 216 sqft., 1 ganda = 4 kara i.e. 864 sqft. and 20 gandas make 1 kani i.e. 17280 sqft. 2.5 kani = approximately 1 acre.
3. The claimants, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer sought references before the Reference Court. The learned Reference Judge by the impugned award dated 11.02.2011 enhanced the compensation payable to claimants @ Rs.15,00,000/- per kani along with statutory benefits against Rs.20,00,000/- per kani claimed by the claimants. The claimants have thereupon filed these appeals seeking compensation at the enhanced rate.
4. Appearing for the appellants learned counsel Mr. D. Deb submitted that the Reference Court has committed a serious error in not allowing the claim of the claimants fully. For awarding higher compensation the claimants had produced sale instances of nearby lands. Such sale instances were not properly considered. Compensation awarded is inadequate.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State Government as well as the Executive Engineer submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is in fact on the higher side. No comparable sale instances were produced by the claimants. The Reference Court has relied on sale instances of lands of different nature situated far away from the acquired land. The appeals may therefore be dismissed.
Page 5 of 10
6. At this stage one may take to account the evidence on record. In the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer he had recorded as under:
"Visited the land under acquisition in field. The acquired land is an approach road for construction of R.C.C bridge over river Howrah. This land is adjacent to Assam Agartala National High Way road. The land under acquisition is also the frontage to immediate contiguity to National High Way road and thus the rate of the value of frontage land is a matter of importance. The land under acquisition are Bhiti/bastu type land and part of the said acquired land is now being utilized as shops."
7. As per the recording by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, the lands were in the nature of viti/bastu type which I am informed is for residential purpose. At the same time, this award also records that on the date of acquisition the part of the land contained shops. I would refer to these aspects later.
8. One Satya Ranjan Debnath, one of the claimants was examined as P.W.1. In his deposition he stated that the land was situated near Khayerpur Bazar in the Southern side of Assam- Agartala road. Nearby there are schools, electrical office, sub- station, PWD office, Town Hall, all situated within a radius of 150 meters from the land. Further, the Industrial Growth Centre, State Cattle Firm were also situated at a distance of 1.5 kilometers. The land had electricity and water supply. He produced several sale instances of the years 1990 to 2001 where according to him similar lands in the nearby area was sold at the rates between Page 6 of 10 Rs.10.60 lakhs to Rs.1.80 crores per kani. He stated that the land in question was fit for commercial use.
9. One Ranjit Debnath Baidya also a claimant, was examined as P.W.2. He also stated that nearby lands in the past were sold in the rate of Rs.10.60 lakhs to 1.80 Crores per kani.
10. As noted, the claimants had produced several sale instances contents thereof to the extent needed would be referred later.
11. Debananda Debbarma, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as O.P.W.1. He stated that at the time of acquisition there was no shop on the acquired land. In fact, there were no shops on the Southern side of the river. Acquired land was about 300 meters away from Khayerpur market. He stated that Palli Mangal School was at a distance about 400 meters and the PWD office was at a distance of about 300 meters.
12. It may be noted that the claimants had produced as many as 4 sales instances of the year 2007 which the Reference Court did not rely upon and correctly in my opinion, because of substantial passage of time between the date of Section 4 Notification in the present case and the concerned sale instances.
13. On the basis of such evidence on record, the Reference Court computed the compensation @ Rs.15,00,000/- per kani by relying upon the sale instance dated 13.11.1990 in which the land of viti class which I am informed is earmarked for commercial use for shops was sold @ Rs.13,48,000/- per kani. He was of the opinion Page 7 of 10 that in view of steady rise in price of real estate in the city of Agartala a reasonable increase should be granted. That is how he arrived at the compensation @ Rs.15,00,000/- per kani.
14. The evidence on record would thus show that the lands in question are abutting or a National highway and were being acquired for the purpose of construction of RCC bridge over river Howrah. The lands were earmarked as viti bastu i.e. for residential purpose, nevertheless as recorded by the land acquisition officer in his award contained some shops when acquisition was being undertaken. In his deposition as O.P.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer said that on the date of seeking notification there were no shops on the land, however, he did not clarify his own recording of the existence of the shops in the award. It would thus become clear that though permissible use of the land on the date of notification was residential, the land did contain a few shops. This would clearly demonstrate the commercial potential of the land.
15. Yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be looked into is that the land was situated in a highly developed area, may be in the outskirts of the city of Agartala. It was not seriously disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer that nearby the land there were schools, PWD office, other commercial establishments and most importantly the Khayerpur market was at a distance of merely 300 meters away from the land. The sketch of the area is available on record. Perusal of the sketch will show that the lands were abutting on the National Highway and the Khayerpur market was just on the opposite side of the Highway. The lands are Page 8 of 10 situated on Southern side of National Highway the market on the Northern side.
16. All the sale instances relied upon by the claimants pertain to different parcels of lands situated in the market. Some adjustment therefore for applying such sale instances to the present case would be necessary. In this context, one may refer to three sale instances which were prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Under a deed dated 13.11.1990, 570 sqft. of land was sold for Rs.35,000/-. This makes the rate of land per kani at Rs.10,61,052/-. Under a sale deed dated 14.08.1992, 234 sqft. of land was sold for Rs.40,000/- which makes the rate of land at Rs.29,53,846/- per kani. Under a sale deed dated 09.09.1998 117 sqft. land was sold for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- which comes to Rs.1,77,00,000/- per kani.
17. Two things may be gathered from this evidence. As noted earlier, the land was situated in an area which was already highly developed and was very close to an existing market place. It also had commercial potentiality. From the sale instances of the nearby lands spread across the years 1990 to 1998, a trend of steady rise in land prices can be discerned.
18. It is true that none of these sale instances can be directly applied in the present case. Firstly, the area of land under sale in all these three cases is extremely small. It is well settled principle that while comparing acquisition of large areas of land sale instances of smaller parcels cannot be applied without proper Page 9 of 10 modification and adjustment. Secondly, the lands in all three sale instances were situated in an existing market area. These lands therefore could be put to commercial use straightway, the occupier would also get benefit of a developed market.
19. Despite these observations, I do not find that the evidence on record would permit me to reject any part of the claim of the claimants. They claim compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. In the year 1990 nearby land, of course in market area was sold at Rs.10,61,000/-. In 1992, the price was Rs.29,53,000/- and in the year 1998, which is closest to the date of Section 4 Notification the sale price jumped to Rs.1,77,00,000/- per kani. Even after making any amount of adjustment for sale instances of small areas of land and of land situated in developed market place, the expectation of the claimants that their lands should have been valued at least at Rs.20,00,000/-per kani is perfectly justified. One cannot lose sight of the fact that even acquisition was not of any unusually large area of land. Total land of acquisition was .478 acres which of course is substantially larger than the lands covered by the sale instances noted above.
20. Considering these aspects of the matter, appeals are allowed. Compensation payable to the claimants for the lands in question is increased to Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. They would also be entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation such as 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter @15% from the date of award till actual payment. Page 10 of 10
21. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
22. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ sima