Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Sri Babul Nama on 8 December, 2022
Author: S.G.Chattopadhyay
Bench: S.G.Chattopadhyay
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA App. No. 26 of 2022
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway,
Badharghat Railway Complex, P.O.- Siddhi Ashram, P.S. -
Amtali, Agartala, Tripura West.,
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Sri Babul Nama, S/O Khir Mohan Nama, Resident of
Village - Pandabpur, Sekerkote, P.O. Sekerkote, P.S.
Bishalgarh, District - Sepahijala, Tripura.
2.The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala.
-----Respondent(s)
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. De, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr.R. Debnath, Adv.
Date of hearing and
Delivery of Judgment/Order : 08.12.2022
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
Judgment and Order(Oral)
[1] This appeal has been directed against the judgment and
award dated 21.09.2021 passed by the LA Judge (Court No.4) West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. (LA) 01 of 2013 2 [2] The learned LA Judge by the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant respondents for acquisition of their land from Rs.75,000/- per kani which has been awarded by the LA Collector to Rs.10 Lakhs per kani along with other statutory benefits. This appeal has been filed by the N.F.Railway to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant respondents by the LA Judge.
[3] The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that a notification dated 03.04.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894(LA Act for short) was published for acquisition of the land of the claimants along with other land at Madhuban Mauja under Bishalgarh sub- division for extension of new railway line from Agartala to Sabroom which was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the LA Act. [4] A land measuring 0.3000 acres in one plot and a land measuring 0.1500 acres in another plot was actually acquired by the appellant from the possession of the claimant respondents for the said purpose and after acquisition, the LA Collector awarded compensation to the claimant respondents at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per kani along with the statutory interest and solatium and a total amount of Rs.200968/- was awarded to the claimants for the acquired land in two plots. 3 [5] Aggrieved by the determination of the market value of the land acquired, the land owners who are the claimant respondents herein sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.
[6] The LA Collector made reference under Section 18 of the LA Act to the jurisdictional Land Acquisition Judge who after hearing the parties delivered the impugned judgment by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) per kani along with 12% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation and 30% solatium. The relevant extract of the impugned judgment of the LA Judge is reproduced hereunder:
"6. Both the issues are taken together for discussion and decision.
The claim of the referring claimant is that the acquired land is situated by the east side of Agartala- Sabroom main road nearer to the Sekerkote market. Price of the land in the locality is very high and increasing day by day and the land is nearer to so many establishments surrounding the land. There are two higher secondary schools, two junior basic schools, three primary schools, Sekerkote market, bank, Anganwadi Centre, PHC and Lamps and Sekerkote Electricity Corporation, etc. and beside the Bishalgarh market, veterinary hospital and Bishalgarh Higher Secondary School are situated about 3 / 4 km south side of the acquired land and therefore, the acquired land had high potential value having availability of modern facilities.
No doubt determination of market price of land is a difficult task for a Court and it cannot be done without minimum fault. Some sorts of arbitrariness or assumption and presumption has to be applied in all such cases. However the best acceptable assessment so far the law has 4 settled in this regard is that of taking into consideration the sale transactions of comparable lands. It is a common practice of the L.A. Collectors in all L.A. cases that they award compensation for the acquired plots of land on the basis of govt. sale rate of the land of concerned locality and mouja but for determination of prevailing market price that standard for assertion of market price of the acquired land cannot be accepted at all because government fixed the rate of land of a particular area to prevent loss of revenue by way of illegal transaction of land in between the buyers and sellers and that government chart prevents the parties in a transaction to sell a particular plot of land below the Govt. rate but there is no impediment from the side of the government for the parties in a transaction to sell a plot of land at much higher rate than the prescribed government rate.
On perusal of record it is surfaced that the L.A. Collector in para 15 of their counter statement stated that as there are no parity among the sale instances mentioned by the L.A. Collector in para 10 of their counter statement. The L.A. Collector decided to take average sale price of the sale instances. The ground and the way the L.A. Collector determined the rate of compensation directly contradict the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 2012. As per judgment taking in average of several sale deeds placed before the authority/ Court for fixing fair compensation is not at all desirable and the highest value should be preferred.
In the instant case, it appears from page 11 of the counter statement that plot No.3530 and 3531 belongs to tilla class of land and the value assessed by the L.A. Collector for the said land was Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and whereas plot No.3213/p belongs to bastu class of land and the value assessed by the L.A. Collector for the said land @ Rs.8,00,000/- per kani and the said land is situated 400 feet away from the acquired land. Another plot No.2724 belong to tilla class of land and the L.A. Collector assessed the value @ 12,80,000/- per kani and the said land situated approx 1850 feet away from the acquired land. Even in 5 cross examination of Sri Narendra Ch. Deb, witness of the O.P. on 22.3.2021 has admitted that sale deed No.1-824 dated 28.8.2006 the rate of land is Rs.12,80,000/- per kani and sale deed No.1-181 dated 24.1.2009 the rate of land is Rs.10,00,000/- per kani which is proposed land for acquisition and very near to the acquired land. From the perusal of the page 11 of the counter statement of O.P. L.A. Collector and cross examination of their witness clearly made it clear that sale deed No.1-181 dated 24.1.2009 the rate of land is Rs.10,00,000/- per kani represents the highest value for tilla class of land which is adjacent to the acquired land and over this issue the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 2012 attains importance. Para 14 and 15 of the said judgment for ready reference is reproduced below -
(14) This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2019)13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (supra) and Hansraj (supra) held in para 20 as under : 20. the legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered."
Again in para 23, it was held that the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified. (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 6 circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority / Court for fixing fair compensation."
Considering the aforesaid sale instance, this Court is of the opinion that the referring claimant is entitled to compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani being a highest exemplar.
7. In the result, the claim of referring claimant stands awarded in the following terms :-
The referring claimant is entitled to get Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani only for the acquired land. He will also get 30% solatium and 12% interest on enhanced amount of compensation computing from the date of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act up to the date of award by L.A. Collector or the date of taking possession of acquired land whichever is earlier as per Section 23(2) and Section 23(1- A) of the said Act respectively. The referring claimants will further get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum after expiry of said one year till payment upon the said excess amount of compensation as per Section 28 of the L.A. Act. As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs State of Punjab reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2822, the interest will also be counted on additional amount as awarded u/s 23(1-A) above and upon the solatium awarded u/s 23(2) of the L.A. Act.
The case is disposed of on contest."
[7] Heard Mr. A.De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R.Debnath, learned counsel appearing for claimant respondents.
[8] Mr.De, learned counsel submits that the learned LA Judge did not appreciate the fact that the LA Collector made the assessment of compensation after consulting as many as 19 sale instances. Counsel 7 submits that the acquired land is 'tilla' class of land for which the assessment made by the LA Collector is absolutely justified. Learned counsel of the appellant has also contended that the learned LA Judge has enhanced the compensation to a rate which is 10 times higher than the rate awarded by the LA Collector and that, too, is not supported by sufficient reasons. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to allow the appeal. [9] Mr.R.Debnath, learned counsel who is representing the claimant respondents has submitted that the award passed by the learned LA Judge, is absolutely justified. Counsel refers to the counter affidavit submitted by the LA Collector wherein it is clearly stated that land of similar class i.e. Tilla land within the proximity of the acquired land was sold out @Rs.10,00,000/- per kani by registered sale deed No.1-181 dated 24.01.2009. According to Mr. Debnath, learned counsel of the claimant respondents, the learned LA Judge rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani relying on the said sale instance which represents the highest value among the sale exemplars produced before the LA Judge. Counsel contends that the acquired land is well connected with the motorable road and there are Higher Secondary school, banks, shops, market and a lot of other private and public institutions within the proximity of the acquired land and as such Rs.10,00,000/- per kani awarded by the learned LA Judge is absolutely justified. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to allow the said judgment by dismissing the appeal. 8 [10] I have considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and perused the records which have been made available before this Court. Section 23 of the LA Act specifies the factors to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired which reads as under:
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation -- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration--
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly,- the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.9
In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum of such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation.--In computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.
(2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
[11] As per the first clause of Section 23, quoted above, for determination of the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 sub-section(1) of the LA Act. To ascertain the market value at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, the LA Collector, as stated, had examined as many as 19 sale exemplars. It is so stated in the counter affidavit submitted by the LA Collector [Respondent No.2]. Among these exemplars, deed No.1-181 dated 24.01.2009 represents the highest value. [12] The assessment note of the LA Collector would indicate that even though the land of the said deed is situated in the same area from where the land of the claimants were acquired, the deed was not relied upon because it was executed immediately before the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, with the intention 'to grab the higher rate which did 10 not prevail in the locality'. The LA Collector could not adduce any material to substantiate such presumption. Admittedly among the exemplar deeds examined by the LA Collector this deed represents the highest value. The deed should have been relied upon by the LA Collector also for the reason that it represents the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication because the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 03.04.2009 and the said deed appears to have been executed on 24.01.2009. It is also admitted by the LA Collector in his counter affidavit that the land of this deed situates at the same area. The assessment note of the LA Collector also indicates that for determination of the valuation of the acquired land the area was visited by the officers of his department and it was found that the proposed area was situated at a distance of only 2 and ½ kms from Agartala - Udaipur road and ½ km from Agartala and Jampuijala road. Its distance from Agartala is only 10 kms. Ramkrishna Mission school is adjacent to the acquired land and the Agartala railway station, kathaltali high school, kathaltali market, Madhuban Panchayet office and some small industries owned by private individuals are not far of. It is also indicated in the assessment note of the LA Collector that 'such developments have created the area more attractive and lucrative to the buyers to purchase land at this location'. Counsel appearing for the claimants before the LA Judge, also brought these facts into the notice of the LA Judge. Having considered these aspects and having relied on the 11 sale exemplar representing the highest market value of the land at time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, the learned LA Judge awarded the compensation at the enhanced rate by a detailed and reasoned judgment.
[13] I find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned LA Judge. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. [14] The appellant is directed to deposit the whole amount of compensation awarded by the learned LA Judge with the registry of this Court within a period of 4 months which shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants by transferring the same to their bank account on verification of their identity.
In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE Saikat Sarma