Bandana Majumder vs Deputy Chief Engineer And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. D. K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.2.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the refereeing-claimant. By this appeal, the judgment and award dated 29.08.2015 delivered in Misc. LA. 147 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Judge, No.2, South Tripura Udaipur, as he then was, has been challenged. So far the award concerning the acquired land pertaining to Khatian No.840 Plot No.1682 [of Nal Class] measuring 0.40 from Mouja-Khilpara under Udaipur Sub-Division is challenged. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically submitted that the referring-claimant is satisfied with the award which has been made in the impugned judgment concerning the plot No. 1344/3400/P [Nal Class of land] pertaining to Khatian No.840 measuring 0.25 acre of the same mouja.

[3] It has been noted that for the said Plot no. 1344/3400/P, the LA Judge has awarded Rs.8 lakhs per kani on considering the various factors relevant for determining the land value. The referring-claimant does not have any grievance in respect of the said plot. The referring-claimant has serious grievance in respect of determination, made in respect of Plot No.1682. There is no controversy in respect of the basic factors chosen for determining value of the land acquired for construction of railway line from Agartala to Sabroom. The LA Collector has followed the process of acquisition and determined the award under Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894. The LA Collector had determined the land value on diverse rates. The rate of that plot has been determined at Rs.1,10,000/- per kani. Being dissatisfied, the referring claimant pressed for reference under Section 18 of the LA, Act, 1894. The said reference being Misc LA. 147 of 2013 has been answered by the judgment dated 29.08.2015 which has been assailed under this appeal.

[4] The LA Judge has determined the principal issue as whether the land rate is required to be revisited and enhanced. For that purpose, he has appreciated the assessment note (Exbt-A series) where for the various classes of land, the LA Collector has determined the rate. For purpose of reference, the observation made by the LA Judge in respect of assessment is extracted hereunder:

In the Assessment Note (Exhibit-A series) it is available that Sale Deed No.I-1580 for Bastu and Doba class of land value is determined at Rs.9,66,666/- per kani. Nal class of land in Sale Deed No.1-1646 shows Rs.10,50,000/- per kani. Both the deeds were registered in the year 2009+. Again it is seen that Sale Deed No.1-1863. Nal class of land Rs.80,000/- per kani. This deed is also executed in the year 2009. Further ,in the Assessment Note it is seen that Bastu class of land in Sale Deed No.1-1304 is valued at Rs.18,08,863/- per kani in the year 2009. Bastu class of land in Sale Deed No.1-2307 in Sl. B. shows Rs.40,00,000/-per kani in the year 2008. In the instant case the LA Collector fixed rate at Rs.1,10,000/- per kani.

[5] Thereafter, the LA Judge, considering the sale deeds relied by the referring-claimants (Exbt-1) wherefrom it surfaced that piece of land measuring 0.21 acre was sold at Rs.5,07,500/- by the sale deed No.1-1580. A Nal class of land was sold at Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. Another two sale deeds were relied on, by the referring claimants. In one sale deed being 1-1646/09, (Part of Exbt-1 series), 0.04 acre of land was sold at 1,05,000/- whereas a piece of land of land measuring 1.10 acre of Nal class was sold by the sale deed 1-153/09 (part of Exbt-1 series) at Rs.2,50,000/-.

[6] Having considered those deeds the LA Judge has enhanced the rate from Rs.8,00,000/- per kani to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani, so far the plot under No.1-1344/3400 is concerned. But the same did not occur in respect of the plot No.1682. That rate of that plot was enhanced from1,10,000/-per kani to Rs.2,00,000/-

[7] Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has submitted that all the plots under the same notification of acquisition and in support of those, he has shown the settlement map. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that plot No.1344/3440 is just along the road and much developed land. Therefore, the LA, Collector awarded Rs.8,00,000/- per kani and that amount has been enhanced by the LA, Judge to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani but the plot No.1682 is an interior and inferior plot-almost land locked and it cannot bring same value as urged by the Mr. D. K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Even Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that the said exemplar as are relied on, does not recite the comparable land. Therefore, there will not be any application for purpose of determining the value of the land, attracted by the plot No.1682.

[8] Having appreciated the submission made by the counsel for the parties and scrutinised the records including the sale deeds, settlement map etc., the solitary question that emerges for determination is whether the determination of the land value in respect of the plot No.1682 is just or reasonable basic rate.

[9] This court is of the further view having considered the nature of plot, severance that has taken place causing the additional loss to the referring claimant that no deduction for purpose of development should be imposed from the value of the land which is to be paid to the referring claimant on determination. The land value for the said plot as determined by the LA Judge is, according to this court, not appropriate. But for the reason that the plot no.1682 is covered by the same notification of acquisition and encompassed by the same settlement map, their distance may not be more than two furlongs. Thus, the rate that would be reasonable if it is raised to Rs.4,00,000/- per kani. Accordingly, the compensation be determined for the acquisition in terms of the Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894- meaning the solatium at the rate of 30% on the basis of the land value be given to the referring-claimant under Section 23 (2) of the LA Act, 1894 and the additional compensation at the rate 12% be added to the compensation under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act, 1894. All components of the compensation shall carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the LA Act. The compensation shall be quantified in terms of the above and paid within four months from the date when the appellant shall supply a copy of this judgment and order to the respondent.

In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.