Ajit Kumar Sen And Ors. vs Executive Engineer And Ors.

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.A. App. No.102 of 2013 and for the respondents in L.A. App. No.37 of 2014 as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in L.A. App. No.102 of 2013 and for the appellants in L.A. App. No.37 of 2014.

Both the appeals being L. A. App. No.102 of 2013 [Ajit Kr. Sen & Ors. vs. Executive Engg., South Divn. III & Ors.] and L. A. App. No.37 of 2014 [State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Samsur Nahar Begum & Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as these appeals are from the judgment and award dated 26.08.2013. The acquired land related to those appeals is under the notification dated 24.04.1993 issued in terms of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of the RCC Bridge over the river Gomati under Sonamura Strategic Road Programme at mouja- Bezimara and Khedabari under Sonamura Sub-Division, West Tripura District (now Sipahijala district).

There is no dispute that in the notification dated 24.04.1993 under Section 17(1) read with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration dated 29.07.1993, the acquired land from the appellants has been shown to be 0.94 acres. According to the appellants in L.A. App. No.102 of 2013, the entire notified land for acquisition was taken possession on 07.10.1993 duly issuing the possession certificate under Section 16 of the L.A. Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded the compensation on the land value @ Rs.20,000/- per kani.

Being aggrieved, the appellants pressed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act where the appellants projected their grievance over the said rate. By the impugned judgment and award dated 26.08.2013 delivered in Misc.(LA) No.101 of 2010, the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4 determined the reference by enhancing the said rate from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- with a further the direction on the Land Acquisition Collector to compute the compensation in terms of Section 23 and grant interest in terms of Section 34 of the L. A. Act. The Land Acquisition Judge has observed for returning the said award as under:

"Taking into consideration all the relevant factors in mind as well as circumstances of the case, the observation comes out that the L. A. Collector did not properly assessed the value of the acquired land. At the same time it is also necessary to point out here that the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- per kani is impracticable and imaginary. It would be reasonable if the rate of the acquired land is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per kani on consideration of the materials available with case record as well as day by day increasing trend of land rate in the State. Accordingly, the rate of the acquired land is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- per kani to Rs.1,00,000/- per kani.

It is stated on behalf of the opposite party L. A. Collector that they acquired the land measuring 0.46 acres, though the referring claimants claimed that 0.94 acres of land has been acquired by the opposite parties but there laws land measuring 0.48 acres as "Sikasti land", the land that has been diluviated in Gomati river. In this regard, the opposite party L. A. Collector did not take any endeavour to make the court convinced as to how they observed that 0.48 acres of land as "Sikasti land" has been diluviated in Gomati river. The opposite party L. A. Collector ought to show the method/process of assessment basing which they determined that 0.48 acres land of referring claimants has been diluviated by adducing cogent evidence.

There is doubt regarding "Sikasti land". Since the opposite party L. A. Collector failed to remove the doubt by adducing cogent documentary evidence, I think, the benefit should go in favour of the referring-claimants. Therefore, the referring claimants should get the enhanced rate of compensation of their entire land under acquisition."

[Emphasis added]

On scrutiny it surfaces that two pertinent questions fall for consideration. Those are (1) whether the Land Acquisition Collector has taken possession of the entire land measuring 0.94 acres under the notification dated 24.04.1993 and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to the same rate for the said alluvial/diluvial land.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land is situated in a high-growth-potential area and its potential has been growing every day. The adjoining land pertaining to the plot No.3272 of mouja-Khedabari was sold at Rs.2,00,000/- per kani on 07.01.1992, just a year before the acquisition took place. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the acquired land should have fetched at least the same amount of rate but the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned judgment and award has on the basis of 'wild guess' and dis-carding the documentary evidence has fixed the rate at Rs.1,00,000/-.

Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned GA has submitted that there is no evidence regarding the location of the land that has been sought to be compared with the acquired land. Mr. Majumder, learned GA has with a strong reservation supported the rate provided by the Land Acquisition Judge. He has further contended that the dilluvial land was not taken into possession and as such in terms of Section 11(a) of the L.A. Act, 1894, the part of the land under reference measuring 0.48 acres has lapsed. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala had correctly computed the compensation on the basis of the remaining land measuring 0.46 acres pertaining to the plots No.3282/p and 3283/p measuring 0.46 acres.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in L.A. App. No.102 of 2013 has stoutly refuted stating that without notice to the land losers, the land cannot even be segregated for purpose of derequisition, to say least of lapse of the acquisition under Section 11(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides that the Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse, provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. It has been explained under Section 11(a) of the said Act that in computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on the basis of the said provision has submitted that the acquisition was notified by a single notification as there was no segregation earlier, even no notice was issued to the appellants of [L. A. App. No.102 of 2013]. Therefore, such segregation is not permissible without drawing up fresh proceeding. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Collector had taken possession of the entire land as notified on 24.04.1993 on issuing the certificate of possession.

On appreciation of the submission made by the learned counsel and having gone through the records, this court is of the view that there are clearly two categories of lands and both the categories cannot fetch the same rate. The land which is settled and solid would form in this case as one category of lands and the land which is not settled, subject to alluvial and diluvial transformation cannot bring the same price. Those are not only inferior land but also without solid formation.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has claimed that the land-rate was to be assessed at the rate at Rs.2,00,000/- per kani, but the L.A. Collector has observed that the location of the land which brought a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani has not been compared with the land that has been acquired. Hence, according to the Land Acquisition Collector the rate cannot be also compared. However, there cannot be any amount of dispute that the settled and solid land along the shall may bring higher rate. Thus, the land measuring 0.46 acres would definitely bring comparatively a higher rate, the rate as determined by the impugned judgment and award is not adequate as the same falls short of reasonable rate for drawing up compensation. This court in the said premise would enhance the rate from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- and on the basis of that the compensation shall have to computed by giving the benefits of Section 23 (1a), Section 23 (2) of L. A. Act. It is made further clear that the additional compensation and the solatium as would be calculated under Sections 23 (1A) and 23(2) of the L. A. Act shall fetch the interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of possession. But the remaining land shall bring much lesser rate and that rate is assessed at Rs.40,000/- per kani. In the similar manner, the compensation against the said land measuring 0.48 acres shall be calculated. The Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent No.4 in L. A. App. No.102 of 2013 shall pay the said enhanced compensation within a period of three months from today. So far the next appeal being L.A. App. No.37 of 2014 is concerned, no elaborate discussion is required. In view of what has been observed, the L.A. App. No.102 of 2013, is partly allowed so far the land measuring 0.48 acres is concerned. The other appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above.

Draw the award/decree accordingly. Send down the records thereafter.