Tripura High Court
Airport Authority Of India vs Sri Abinash Sarkar on 12 September, 2023
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA.App 29 of 2022
Airport Authority of India
Agartala Airport
Represented by the Director of Airport Authority
Agartala Airport, PO & PS Airport
District: West Tripura
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Abinash Sarkar
S/o Basiram Sarkar
Resident of Narsingarh
District- West Tripura
---Respondent(s)
The LA Collector, Government of Tripura West Tripura, Agartala.
---Pro-forma-Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
Date of hearing
& date of delivery of
judgment and order : 12.09.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] Today, at the very outset, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel for the
respondent-claimants represents before this court that they have been appearing in this matter on behalf of the respondent- claimants since 08.09.2023.
Page 2 of 7[3] It is seen from the record that on all earlier occasions, Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel appeared for the respondent- claimants. Whereas, Mr. P.Gautam, learned counsel appeared for the LA Collector.
[4] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed by Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc (LA) 167 of 2014.
[5] The brief facts of the appellant is that the land of the claimant was acquired by the O.P., L. A. Collector, West Tripura vide Notification No.F.9(13). REV/ACQ//VI/98, dt.17.07.1997 and subsequent another notification no. F.9(12)-REV/ACQ/VI/99 dated 08/07/1998 under section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 for the extension of runway of Agartala Airport (Northern side).
Description of acquired land District-West Tripura, Sub-Division: Sadar, Mouja-Narsingarh, Khatian, No.291/1, 291/2, 291/5, Plot No.1644, 1647, Bhiti (Tilla), Chara (Tilla), area 1.10 acre.
[6] The compensation of the acquired land was assessed by the L.A. Collector @ Rs.40,700/- per kani and total amount of Rs.1,11,925.00, 30% Additional Compensation Rs.33577.50, 12% Additional amount Rs.3,357.75/-. In Total Rs. 1,48,860.25 Rs. 1,48,860.00 was awarded to the claimant including all other statutory reliefs as indicated in the document of apportionment of compensation. In the reference-sheet total compensation also mentioned as Rs. 1,48,860.00. The L.A. Collector ignoring other aspects awarded the final amount of Rs. 1,48,860/-. Being aggrieved/dissatisfied, with the land valuation, the claimant approached for the assessment of the market value at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani.
Page 3 of 7[7] The claimant in the claim statement, claimed the value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. According to claimant, the acquired land had high potential value being situated within the Agartala Municipal Corporation areas, Agartala-Narsingarh via Airport VIP road, Agartala Narsingarh via Gandhigram-Salbagan-Lichubagan road, G.B. to Narsingarh road. According to Claimant, the acquired land was most suitable for commercial purposes and business centre and within the industrial area. According to claimant, the acquired land is very closed to the Agartala Airport, Bharatia Vidya Bhavan, Polytechnic College, Narsingarh H.S. School, Sukhamoy H.S. School, Nutan Bazar Girls' H.S. School, Holly Cross School, G.B.Hospital, Mental Hospital, Veterinary Hospital, ILS Hospital, Secretariat Complex, Assembly, Orphan and Blind Ashram, Police Training Centre, Tripura High Court, Music College. According to the claimant the acquired land is also situated very near to the Usha Bazar Market, Narsingarh Market, Narayanpur Market, Nutanbazar Market having the facility of water supply, electricity and other essential services.
[8] The L.A. Collector in their counter statement mentioned that the land holders claim compensation @ 10,00,000/-(ten lakh) per kani but they failed to produce any sale instances for such claim. The classification of acquired land are nal, bhiti, chara and lunga. According to L.A. Collector the acquired land was a Bhiti, (Tilla), Chara (Tilla) class of land and situated far from the road and at the time of acquisition, the land has no potential value as claimed by the referring claimant for enhancement of compensation. There were no amenities of modern facilities like as electricity, Water supply, Telephone, Post Office, market Transportation, School Hospital or Government offices. The requiring department Airport Authority of India, Agartala filed counter statement. In their counter statement they stated that the payment of compensation Page 4 of 7 was given to the referring claimant as assessed by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura and the said amount was reasonable, considering the market value at the relevant time. The said amount of compensation as assessed by the L.A.Collector was duly received by the referring claimant without any objection and hence the referring claimant has got no locus standi to claim any enhancement before this Ld. Court. They also stated in their counter claimant that the requisition for acquisition of land has come from the Airport Authority in both Mouja-Singarbil and Narsingarh for acquisition of land for northern side in a compact block. [9] Finally, the learned court below has observed in the following manner:
"Considering the aforesaid sale instance, I am of the opinion that the claimant of this case is entitled to compensation as per the Judgment in Misc LA 22 of 2010 (Ext.4) as considered by my predecessor of this court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. The compensation thus allowed 30% solatium u/s 23(A) of the Act and 12 % additional compensation u/s.23(1)(A) of the Act from the date of notification u/s.4 of the Act till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. The interest of the amount of compensation, additional compensation and solatium shall be at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of enhanced amount."
[10] Aggrieved by the said impugned order of the court below, the appellant has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Admit this appeal
(b) Call for the records of the case bearing no.Misc(LA) 167/2014 from the Ld.Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala.
(c) Issue notice upon the respondents
(d) After hearing the parties this court will also be pleased to pass and order of setting aside/modified the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc(LA) 167/2014.
(e) To grant further order or orders and relief or reliefs to which the appellant is entitled to having regard to the facts and circumstances.
(f) To consider the facts and circumstances of the case and pass order staying execution of the award dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition Jude, Court No.4 West Tripura, Agartala in Misc (LA) 167/2019 till disposal of the appeal.
[11] It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that this Court by a common judgment and award dated 07.03.2011 has disposed of a series of LA Appeals & Cross-objection (FA) Viz. LA App No.31 of Page 5 of 7 2011, LA App No. 75 of 2011, LA App 79 of 2011, LA App 81 of 2011, with CO(FA) 26 of 2013, LA APP No.83 of 2011 with CO (FA) 23 of 2013, LA App No. 24 of 2012 & LA App No.34 of 2012 arising out of the similar facts and identical questions of law and out of the same Mouja and same notification vide No.F.9(8)Rev/Acq/VI/96 dated 12.11.1997 under Section 4 of the LA Act and the subsequent notification vide No.F.9(8)Rev/Acq/VI/96 dated 09.12.1996 under Section 6 of the LA, Act having regard to the principles laid down in section 28A of the LA Act the land as acquired for the purpose of construction of the runway in the southern side of the Airport, Agartala this Court was pleased enough to accept the rate of Rs.70,000/- per kani for the acquired land instead of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani as determined by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned judgment and award against which those series of appeal had given rise.
[12] It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that Ld. Judge below before coming to the conclusion ought to have specified the sale deeds which the Ld.Court relied upon the regards distance from the land under acquisition, the nature and character of the land under sale deeds, the date of performance of the transfer of lands, the name of mouja etc but the Ld. LA Judge, without considering these important aspects most arbitrarily and illegally enhanced the compensation per kani rate ascertained by LA Collector @ Rs.40,700/- to Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of the land in question almost four times higher is unjust and improper and therefore the impugned judgment and award is liable to be reduced.
[13] It is contended by Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that the acquired land, which was the subject matter in LA.App 31 of 2011 was acquired under Notification No.F.9(8)Rev/Acq/VI/96 dated Page 6 of 7 12.11.1997. But the land which is the subject matter in the instant appeal has been acquired by the appellant vide notification No.F.9(13)- Rev/ACQ/VI/98 dated 08.07.1998.
[14] It is further contended that the land so acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1997 falls on the southern side of airport which is under different mouja. But the land in question which has been acquired vide notification dated 07.07.1998 falls on the northern side of airport. Therefore, the compensation as awarded by the impugned order is just and proper and does not need any interference from this court. [15] It is further seen from the record that the appellant has not reached this court with clean hands as they have not produced any evidence before the court below to establish that the land in question in the instant case as acquired by the notification dated 08.07.1998 is different than those of land acquired by the Notification No.F.9(8)Rev/Acq/VI/96 dated 12.11.1997.
[16] Moreover, the court below has rightly dealt with while awarding the compensation and has observed in the following manner:
"15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."
[17] Having perused the entire record and also having considered the submission as advanced by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the appellant has failed to make out his case. The findings of the court below is just and proper and needs no interference from this court. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation in dismissing the Page 7 of 7 present appeal confirming the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed by Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc (LA) 167 of 2014. It is needless to observe that the appellant, if not deposited the entire amount, shall deposit the entire amount from one month from today as per the impugned order dated 04.02.2019. On receipt of the amount, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same unconditionally as per procedure.
[18] With the above observation and direction, the present appeal stands accordingly dismissed and thus disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE Dipak Digitally signed by DIPAK DIPAK DAS DAS Date: 2023.09.14 17:15:01 +05'30'