Abdul Barek And Ors. vs Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons.) And Anr.

[1] Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, The Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons.), Agartala N. F. Railway.

[2] This appeal has been filed challenging the determination of the compensation made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, [L.A. Judge, for short] Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 in case No. Misc (L.A) 197 of 2015.

[3] Briefly stated, the facts are that a land measuring 0.85 acres appertaining to Khatian No. 909, Plot No.4075/P, Sheet No. 5/P of Mouja Bishalgarh owned by the referring claimants was acquired vide notification dated 05.07.2011 by the learned Land Acquisition Collector [L.A. Collector, for short] for construction of railway line from Agartala to Sabroom, and in this regard the referring-claimant was given an award of Rs.40,44,533/- for the acquired land, but, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of award, he sought for reference. The referring claimant claimed compensation @ Rs.60,00,000/- per kani. He relied upon 3 [three] sale deeds i.e. Exbt.-4, Exbt-5 and Exbt-6, which were transacted on 17.01.2009, 18.02.2009 and 25.02.2012. The land was acquired in the year 2011.

[4] All the parties to the proceeding filed their respective pleadings. After exchange of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned L.A. Judge. He proceeded to decide the issues on the basis of evidence led by the parties to the lis. From the judgment it appears that the sale deed under Exbt.4 was transacted at the value of Rs.40,00,000/- per kani, Exbt.5 valued at Rs.35,00,000/- per kani and Exbt. 6 valued at Rs.2,32,00,000/- per kani for the land measuring 1 ganda 3 kara 2 kranta and 14 dhur. The learned L.A. Judge has out-rightly rejected to consider the land of Exbt.6 for the reason that this kind of valuation even not expected in Bishalgarh town area. As such, according to the learned L.A. Judge, Exbt.6 cannot be taken into consideration to decide the actual rate of the acquired land.

[5] I find no error in the decision of the learned L.A. Judge in this respect. There is another reason not to take Exbt.6 for consideration of the value of the acquired land is that, the acquired land measures more than 2 kani, whereas, the exemplar sale deed under Exbt.6 measures only 1 ganda and odds.

[6] Now, there remains two sale deeds i.e. Exbt.4 and Exbt.5. While determining the valuation of the acquired land, the learned L.A. Judge had taken into consideration the said two sale deeds - one valued at Rs. Rs.40,00,000/- per kani and another valued at Rs. 35,00,000/- per kani. The learned L.A. Judge after considering the evidence and materials on record, had taken into consideration the land transacted under Exbt.5, the value of which was determined Rs.35,00,000/- per kani. The reason as assigned by the learned L.A. Judge is that, the referring-claimant, failed to produce the map before the Court to find out the distance between the exemplar land and the acquired land. True it is, Bishalgarh Mouja consists of vast areas of land and under this mouja, Bishalgarh town is also situated.

[7] I endorse the view of the learned L.A. Judge that only for the reason that the acquired land and the exemplar land are situated within the same mouja, it would fetch the same value. As such, the findings of the learned L.A. Judge in this regard that the valuation of the acquired land should be determined @Rs.35,00,000/- per kani, does not call for any interference. Though, L.A. Act is a public welfare legislation, but it does not absolve the land-owners to perform their part obligation to establish the fact that his land should fetch higher value by producing, at least, some evidence which would aid the Court to come to assess the valuation of the land accurately.

[8] The learned L.A. Judge placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Subh Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444, deducted 10% for the distance and 30% for utility from the highest sale price as cited by Exbt.5. Taken into consideration the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Subh Ram (supra), I endorse the view of the learned L.A. Judge regarding 10% deduction for the distance, but, I am of the opinion that, the learned L.A. Judge fell into error in deducting 30% against utility of the land. In my opinion, the deduction should be 15% against the utility of the land. So, the deduction is assessed at Rs.35,00,000 - 25% (10%+15%) i.e. [Rs.35,00,000- 8,75,000] = Rs.26,25,000/- per kani which the referring- claimant is entitled to get as compensation for acquisition of his land. Accordingly, the learned L.A. Collector shall assess the quantum of compensation of the acquired land payable to the referring claimant, the appellant herein. Needless to say, that the enhanced amount shall accrue all statutory benefits including interest under Section-34 of the L.A. Act.

[9] In the light of above, the present appeal stands allowed in part in the above terms.