AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (Agartala Municipal Corporation). Also heard Mr. S. D. Choudhury, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the awardees and Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-L.A. Collector.
[2] The undisputed fact is that the land of the respondents were acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2012 and the purpose of acquisition was for construction of approach road leading to Agartala to Simna road for dumping ground for development of sanitary land Fill & Compost Plant under Sadar Sub-division, West Tripura, Agartala.
[3] The L.A. Collector has awarded compensation at Rs.60,000/- per kani. The respondent-land losers sought for reference under Section-18 of the L.A. Act. Accordingly, the L.A. Judge had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. The Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC for short) has become aggrieved of that order. Therefore, they approached before this Court for reducing the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned L.A. Judge.
[4] Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that it was a dumping ground and there is no habitation in and around the dumping ground and the land is of no value at all. He has further submitted that the dumping ground is far away from Agartala town. As such, the land did not fetch any higher value than that of Rs. 60,000/- per kani and he strongly defended the market price as determined and assessed by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala.
[5] Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel further submits that the awardees has relied upon some documents which belong to a very small area of land and the L.A. Judge has relied upon those sale documents. According to him, a vast area of land was acquired and a small quantity of land cannot be compared with the said vast quantity of land and the deeds of the L.A. Collector is in a close proximity of the acquired land so the learned Judge ought to have been relied upon the deeds as submitted before the L.A. Judge.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. S. D. Choudhury and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the awardees defended the award with further submission that this amount is also too meager. However, they did not prefer any cross-appeal in this case demanding higher compensation. For this reason, the Court cannot entertain this submission that the acquired land fetches much higher price than that of the amount as assessed by the learned L.A. Judge.
[7] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the respondents did not connect the relation between the exhibited sale deeds with the land under acquisition. No documents have been produced by the claimant to show that the land under acquisition and the land under exhibited sale deeds possessed the same potentiality.
[8] On the basis of the submission as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have meticulously perused the records and the claim petition filed by the respondent-awardees as well the counter claim filed by the L.A. Collector and the AMC being the requiring department. I have considered the judgment of the learned L.A. Judge.
[9] I also have perused the government map indicating the land acquired by the L.A. Collector. No doubt that the damping ground was a barren land and for that reason, the Govt. had chosen the said site to convert into a damping ground but to approach this damping ground the land which is under acquisition, originates from the main road i.e. the Agartala-Simna road and a substantial area belongs to tea garden. The entire acquired land being adjacent to and in the vicinity of Agartala town, undoubtedly has great potentiality.
[10] From the entire map, it reveals that all facilities and amenities are available in the surroundings of the acquired land. There is ICFI University, Agricultural University and also Para Military forces' camps. Moreover, the city of Agartala is expanding towards the area where the lands are situated, as a result of which there is constant trend of increased market price as the days are passed on.
[11] For all the aforesaid factors, according to this Court, the award of the L.A. Judge should not be said to be on the higher side. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. The assessment as made by the L.A. Judge is maintained in the context of the present case. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.