Tripura High Court
The Union Of India vs Sri Suresh Laskar on 5 July, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP 70 of 2013
The Union of India,
represented by the Officer Commanding,
112 RCC (GREF), C/O 99 APO
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Sri Suresh Laskar,
son of Nabakishore Laskar, resident of Mainama, LTV,
P.S. Manu, Dhalai, Ambassa, Tripura
2. The Land Acquisition Collector,
Dhalai, Tripura, Ambassa
... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC
For respondents : None
L.A. APP 64 of 2013
The Union of India,
represented by the Officer Commanding,
112 RCC (GREF), C/O 99 APO
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Sri Harendra Debbarma,
son of late Nabin chandra Debbarma, resident of Mohanpur,
P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sipahijala, Tripura,
(represented by his attorney, Sri Abani Mohan Sarkar)
2. The Land Acquisition Collector,
Dhalai, Tripura, Ambassa
... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. B. Majumder, CGC
For respondents : None
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment and Order : 05.07.2017
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant-Union of India in L.A. APP 64 of 2013 and Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the appellant-Union Page 1 of 8 of India in L.A. APP 70 of 2013. None appears for the respondents when the appeals were called out for hearing.
2. It has been urged by both the counsel appearing for the appellants that these appeals are squarely covered by a decision of this court in Officer Commanding vs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma and others [judgment and order dated 28.07.2015 delivered in L.A. APP 37 of 2011] etc. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, these two appeals emerge from the same notification and the acquisition for the same project namely construction of National Highway 44A from Manu to Simlowng. Both the appeals, therefore, may be disposed in terms of the common judgment and order dated 28.07.2015 [Officer Commanding vs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma].
3. The essential facts are placed against each appeal. Appeal No. 64 of 2013
[Union of India vs. Sri Harendra Debbarma and another] By the notification under No. 9(1)-REV/ACQ/V/2003 dated 11.02.2004, the land of the respondent no. 1 measuring 0.42 acres pertaining to CS plot no. 2994(P)(Dhepa) measuring 0.24 acres and CS plot no. 1691 (P) (Charra) measuring 0.18 acres under Khatian no. 434 of Mouja- Mainama under Tehsil- Chailengta was acquired for purpose of construction of 44A National Highway. After the purported inquiry, the Land Acquisition Collector valued the acquired land dhepa [nal class of land] at Rs.50,000/- per kani and cherra class of land Page 2 of 8 at Rs.80,000/- per kani. Thus, the total compensation was drawn up at Rs.97,280/-. The respondent no. 1, Sri Harendra chandra Debbarma [the land loser] being dissatisfied, pressed for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference being Misc. L.A. 36 of 2009 was determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar by the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2012 by enhancing the rate to Rs. 2 lakh per kani irrespective of the class of land in lieu of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per kani as was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The reason for such enhancement is available in the said judgment dated 21.01.2012 which reads as follows:
"The L.A. Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa consulted some deeds before ascertaining the rate. One deed No. 1-166(B) dated 8.9.2003 was consulted. That land was nal/chara and its value has been shown at Rs.1,20,000/- per kani. On the other hand, the claimant-petitioner produced two sale deeds. In those sale deeds land was sold out at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per kani in the year 2002, but the area of the land was small, .02 acre. That small area of the land cannot be the basis for determining the value of the land. The acquired lands fall under the same Mouja Mainama. Notification vide No. F.9(1)-REV/ACQ/V/2003 was issued on 11.02.2004 and as per Valuation Deed supplied by the L.A. Collector for Mainama Mouja same kind of land was sold out @Rs.1,20,000/- per kani in the year 2003. Area of the land was also .18 acre in that deed. The acquired land had potentiality and it was acquired for construction of the National Highway. After lapse of one year value of the land has tendency to rise. All these factors value of the land is determined @Rs. 2 lakh per kani instead of Rs.80,000/- per kani for chara class and Rs. 50,000/- per kani for Depha class as awarded by the L.A. Collector for 0.42 acre of land. The value of the lands is to be calculated accordingly @Rs.2 lakh per kani instead of Rs.80,000/- & Rs.50,000/- per kani".
The appeal being L.A. Appeal no. 64 of 2013 has been filed challenging that finding on the ground of objection that the enhancement in the rate irrespective of the classification is perverse and contrary to the settled position of law. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded the compensation Page 3 of 8 having due regard to all aspects required to be considered for just compensation in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Appeal no. 70 of 2013 [Union of India vs. Sri Suresh Laskar and another] For purpose of construction of 44A National Highway, the land of the respondent no.1 measuring 0.18 acres pertaining to plot no. 1385(P)(tilla) under Khatian no. 678 of Mouja- Mainama of Tehsil- Chailengta was acquired by virtue of the notification dated 17.02.2013 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent no.1's claim was for Rs.8 lakh per kani, but the Land Acquisition Collector determined the land value at Rs.60,000/- per kani for the entire acquired land measuring 0.18 acres and the compensation was drawn up accordingly at Rs.39,797/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said determination, the respondent no.1 [the land loser] pressed for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference being Civil Misc L.A. 39 of 2009 has been determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar by the impugned judgment dated 29.02.2012. By the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the rate for the land at Rs. 2 lakh per kani from of Rs.60,000/- per kani. While making the award, the Land Acquisition Judge has provided the other components in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Being aggrieved thereof, this Page 4 of 8 appeal has been filed by the Requiring Department, Union of India through the Officer Commanding, 112 RCC, GREF being L.A. Appeal 70 of 2013 on the ground that the basis of enhancing the land rate is entirely unsustainable. For purpose of reference, the reasons assigned for the enhancement is reproduced hereunder:
"Claimant-petitioner claimed valuation of the [email protected],00,000/- per kani. L.A. Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa consulted some deeds before ascertaining the rate. One deed No. 1-166(B) dated 8.9.2003 was consulted. That land was nal/chara and its value has been shown at Rs.1,20,000/- per kani. Claimant-petitioner produced 2 sale deeds (Ext. 1 series). In those sale deeds land was sold out at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani. But, area of the land is very small, .02 acre. That small area of land cannot be the basis for determining the value of the land. It is true that both the lands fall under the same Mouja Mainama.
Market value as envisaged in section 23(1) of the L.A. Act is designed to award just and fair compensation for the lands and postulates price of the land prevailing on the date of publication of the notification. A land possessing similar advantage to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Market value means the price which a purchaser willing to pay for similar land to willing seller. The potentialities of the developing must be taken into account in fixing the value of the land.
In this case the notification was given in the year 2003 and as per the valuation deed supplied by the LA Collector for Mainama Mouja same kind of land was sold out @Rs.1,20,000/- per kani in the year 2003. Area of land was also .18 acre as per the deed No. 1-166(B). The acquired land has a potentiality, as because, the land is acquired for construction of the National Highway.
Considering all these, the market value of all the classes of land is determined @Rs.2,00,000/- per kani instead of Rs.60,000/- per kani, as given by the LA Collector. For.18 acre of land, compensation is given as Rs.27,000/-. As per the enhanced compensation, the claimant petitioner is entitled to get Rs.90,000/- for .18 acre of land. Rs. 27,000/- has already been given and so, now the claimant-petitioner will get Rs.63,000/- (rupees sixty three thousand) as enhanced amount for his land. Over this amount, the claimant petitioner will get 30% solatium and 12% interest. Claimant is not entitled to get any other relief or reliefs. "
4. Mr. Majumder and Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC have submitted that similar issue had fallen for consideration before this court and the proposition as emerged in the said decision [Officer Commanding vs. Punnyapati Chakma and others] squarely covers these appeals inasmuch as the Page 5 of 8 principle as laid down under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act may be applied for determining the land value which are under the same notification, under the same project and under the same mouja.
5. As noted above, the Land Acquisition Collector gave different rates for different class of land, but the Land Acquisition Judge while determining the reference has given uniform rate irrespective of their class. In the Officer Commanding vs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma and others, this court has held as under:
"From the records it has appeared that barring of few pieces of land, the land acquired from the Mouja- Mainama falls under nal, viti and bastu class of land and thus, for them if the uniform rate is awarded no injustice would be caused to the appellants inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Collector had followed the same suit. Grant of the uniform land value irrespective of their category is not permissible unless that is persuasive in the context of the method that is applied inasmuch as in Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47, the apex court held that the value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining the value of large tract of land but with a rider that the Court while taking such instances into consideration has to make a reasonable deduction keeping in view of the other attendant circumstances. Similar view has been expressed in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Kashiram(dead) by L.Rs. and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 506 and Prabhakar Raghunath Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 107. The principle as laid down by the apex court firmly indicates to certain flaws that may visit the assessment of the compensation. But in the case in hand, the point is not the comparison of land value of the large tract of land with the small piece of land but the objection is focused as to awarding the uniform rate to inferior quality and category of the acquired land, such as tilla, doba, pukur, pukur par and balu char. According to this Court, however small may be quantity of the said category of land those cannot fetch the similar rate with that of viti, bastu, chara and lunga and nal class of land. Accordingly, 20% shall be deducted for the said category of land from the land value that has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge. So far the other objections are concerned about use of the highest sale instance from the sale instances appreciated by the Land Acquisition Collector, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the said method. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, the apex court has held in the unequivocal terms that the highest comparable exemplar from the comparable sale exemplars has to be accepted. For purpose of reference, para-15 of the said report is reproduced herein:
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 a different course. It is not desirable to Page 6 of 8 take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.
Having held thus, this Court is of the view that so far the land value as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned judgments is not generally required to be interfered with. But so far awarding of the similar value towards all categories of land requires interference. Hence, it is directed that so far the land pertaining to tilla, doba, pukur, pukur par and balu char from Mouja-Mainama is concerned, deduction at 20% from the rate as has been determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, shall be made.
6. From the description of the land, as recorded by this court, it would be apparent that the land as acquired falls within the category of tilla so far the appeal being L.A. App No. 70 of 2013 is concerned in L.A. App No. 64 of 2013 the land as acquired falls within two categories dhepa [nal] and cherra, [cherra nal]. These categories of land would definitely come under the inferior land as reflected in Officer Commanding vs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma and others. In terms of Officer Commanding vs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma and others, those lands [the land related to L.A. Appeal no. 64 of 2013] would fetch the rate of Rs. 2 lakh per kani, but a deduction @20% from the rate shall be made for determining the compensation, to be paid to the respondent no.1, but the land as related to the L.A. App No. 70 of 2013 would fetch the rate of Rs.2 lakh per kani without any deduction.
7. In view of this, the L.A. Appeal no. 64 of 2013 is partly allowed whereas the L.A. App 70 of 2013 stands dismissed.
8. Before parting with the records, it is made clear that after drawing up the compensation in terms of the rate, as Page 7 of 8 indicated above, 12% interest shall be paid as the additional compensation under Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and 30% shall be paid as the solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further made clear that not only on the principal compensation but also on the additional compensation and on the solatium, interest shall have to be paid to the respondent no.1 in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Draw the decree accordingly and send down the records.
< JUDGE Saikat Page 8 of 8