AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, LA Act‟) from the judgment and award respectively dated 18.06.2016 and 20.06.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Misc. (L.A.) App. No.14 of 2012.
[3] There is no dispute that for construction of Churaibari Check-Post by invoking the emergency provision under Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act,1894 and by the Notification No.2853-55/DM/LA/N/D/6/2007 dated 20.12.2007, the land had been acquired by the appropriate Government on requisition of the respondent No.1.
[4] By the subsequent Notification dated 18.01.2008, the emergency provision was introduced. Thereafter, having considered the claim of the land-losers like the appellant herein, the LA Collector assessed the compensation by preparing an assessment sheet, which is the part of the record, and allowed Rs.26,00,000/-per kani.
[5] On the basis of that rate determined by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmanagar by purported field verification and the rate reflected in the sale deeds as procured by the appropriate Government bearing No.1-2433 dated 21.09.2007, 1-2434 dated 21.09.2007, 1-2436 and 1-2435 dated 21.09.2007, the land value of the acquired land was determined by the L.A. Collector. All these deeds were in relation to a vita class of land and the value of the land as recorded therein was Rs.80,00,000/- per kani.
[5] The appellant was aggrieved by the said determination and pressed for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for determination of the appropriate land value on 03.05.2008 and claimed as under:
"I pray for compensation for land at Rs.80,00,000/- per kani minimum."
[6] The reference being Misc. (L.A.) No.14 of 2012 was made and answered by the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar by the judgment and award dated 18.06.2016 which has been challenged by means of this appeal. The land of the appellant which has been acquired pertains to RS Plot No.5579/7697 and 5587(P)/6550 respectively measuring 0.12 acre and 0.08 acre (total 0.20 acre) recorded in the Khatian No.2692 and 2783 of Mouja Churaibari.
[7] The Land Acquisition Judge having recorded the evidence, both oral and documentary, was pleased to interfere with the decision of the LA Collector in respect of value of the land. It would be apposite to note that the referring claimant himself deposed as PW1 and one Satyajit Malakar testified in the proceeding as PW2.
[8] PW1 admitted in the evidence Khatians No.2692 and 2783 relating to the acquired land (Exbt.2), the certified copy of the map of Mouja Churaibari Sheet No.12 (Exbt.3) one valuation certificate (Exbt.4) the certified copy of the sale deed No.1-2433 dated 21.09.2007 (Exbt.5), the certified copy of the sale deed No.1-2434 dated 21.09.2007 (Exbt.6), the certified copy of the sale deed No.1-2435 dated 21.09.2007 and the certified copy of the sale deed No.1-2436 dated 21.09.2007 (Exbt.8 Series).
[9] The Land Acquisition Judge has considered the issues together and has observed that the referring claimant (PW1) has relied the value as reflected in the sale deed No.1-2433, 1-2434, 1-2435 and 1-2436 dated 21.09.2007 (Exbts. 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively). Exbt.5 shows the rate at Rs.80,00,000/- per kani, Exbt.6 shows the rate at Rs.80,00,000/- per kani, Exbt.7 shows the rate at Rs.1,44,00000/- per kani. Exbt.5,6,7 and 8, according to the L.A. Judge, are in respect of very small pieces of land and those are are commercial land adjacent to the national high way. But the land as acquired from the referring-claimant falls within Churaibari Mouja. But since those lands are small pieces of land, the Land Acquisition Judge considered those deeds incompetent to be compared on wholesome basis as the exemplar deed for purpose of determining the land value of the acquired land. Thereafter, considering some precedents it has been observed that even if the highest value in the exemplar deeds is Rs.80,00,000/- per kani but assuming the development cost 60% from those rates has been deducted and value of the acquired land has been determined at Rs.32,00,000/- per kani .
[10] Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said proposition cannot be acceptable as from bare reading of the assessment sheet it would imminently surface that the land as acquired is soundly developed and classified as Bastu class of land and hence, for purpose of construction no further development would be required and as such the deduction as carried is not only unreasonable but also uncalled for.
[11] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents particularly for the LA Collector has submitted that in the assessment sheet in the paragraphs 8 and 9, the LA Collector has recorded that those lands which were considered were small pieces of land and their evaluation cannot be made basis for purpose of determining the land value.
[12] Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has laid his emphasis on the Para-9 of the said assessment sheet which is reproduced hereunder for purpose of reference:
"Out of 4.15 acres of land 1.00 acres of land are recorded as Bastu Lunga‟. The SDM, Dharmanagar has ascertained the rate as Rs.26.00 lakhs. But from the very connotation it is apparent that the land in question was Lunga‟ and now has been diverted to Bastu‟ for supposed setting up of some urban facilities vide note no.16 in the file. But since the urban facilities are still absent there and the diversion, as it appears has been done very recently, it may not be prudent to accept the land as Bastu‟. At the same time, it may not be wise to treat the land as Lunga‟ as well. The land may be treated as Nail‟ which is in between Nal‟ and Lunga‟." [Emphasis added]
Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has contended that the LA Collector did not ascertain any value for the Nal‟ class of land in the assessment sheet. Therefore, he has accepted the rate as proposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the purported field inquiry and there is no illegality in accepting the said rate.
[13] In response Mr. De, learned counsel has relied on the Sale Deed No.1-2435, Exbt.7 Series, to contend that the said sale deed which was executed on 21.09.2007 is a contemporaneous one and that deed fetched the rate of Rs.1,44,00,000/- per kani. By means of the settlement map it can be located that land is situate in close proximity of the said land, but no further evidence has been laid by the petitioner by adducing the vendor or the vendee. For this reason, this court would not adopt the said Exbt.7 as the examplar deed for purpose of determining the land value. However, at the same time, the strange analogy as has been given by the LA Judge cannot also be accepted by this court.
[14] The LA Judge while determining the land value has deducted 60% of the value of the land as recorded in the sale deeds relied by the LA Collector without any basis as in the assessment note it has been clearly stated that the lands as acquired are developed and the development has taken place much before their acquisition. Even the rate of deduction has been applied without looking at the very principle of deduction. In this regard, this court is persuaded to rely on a decision of the apex court Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721. In that report, apex court has observed as follows:
"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 take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation." [Emphasis added]
[15] Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has desperately tried to impress this court that Paras-8 and 9 of the assessment sheet has carved out the circumstances justifying a different course, but this court is unable to accept that argument inasmuch as the deeds which were relied by the LA Collector have not been imputed to be created by any malafide transactions.
[16] Having observed thus, this court does not find any embargo in considering those rates which were available from the deeds as considered by the LA Collector as stated above. Therefore, this court is of the view that, the primary rate would be Rs.80,00,000/- per kani of the acquired land in consonance with the principle carved out in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra).
[17] Mr. De, learned counsel has raised an issue that the acquisition had actually taken place in the year 2008 and the deeds as relied by the LA Collector were of 2007 and hence, the acceleration rate be added to that rate. This court will not accept that argument as it has been already recorded that notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued at the end of the year, 2007.
[18] Further, this court is of the view that in the present context no deduction should be permitted on account of the development cost, as the LA Collector himself has admitted that the land is thoroughly developed and the urban infrastructure may be created on the said land. It has also not been denied that the lands are situate along the National Highway-44. Therefore, no further infrastructure is required to be developed. Thus, the basic rate for calculating or computing the compensation in terms of Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894 shall be Rs.80,00,000/-.
[19] Hence, the respondents are directed that compensation be calculated on the basis of the land value of Rs.80,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land of the referring claimant measuring 0.20 acre. The compensation, it is needless to say, has to be rounded off by giving solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the LA Act 1894 and additional compensation @12% under Section 23(1A) of the LA Act, 1894. Thereafter, the interest shall be made available in terms of Section 34 of the LA Act, 1894 on the components of compensation. The compensation be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the day when a copy of this order shall be supplied to the LA Collector.
[20] In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.