Chief Engineer vs Subhankar Baidya And Ors

Heard Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Before taking up the instant appeal, I have seen the notes of the Registry to find out whether the respondents had received notice. It is found from the note of Registry dated 18.01.2020, notices were properly served upon the respondents No.1 and 2. But, the respondents did not file their respective memo of appearances. As I have taken up the matter in absence of the respondents, I have meticulously gone through the statements of claim, the evidence led on by the claimant-respondent No.1 as well as the supporting documents including sale instances produced by the claimant to substantiate the claim.

The present Land Acquisition Appeal arises out of judgment and award, dated 22.03.2018 made by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge (District Judge), Mr. A.K. Nath, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Misc.(L.A.) Case No. 31 of 2016, awarding compensation for the acquired land @7,50,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) per kani.

A large junk of land was acquired by the State of Tripura for laying Railway track for extension of railway connectivity within the State of Tripura. For the purpose of undertaking such construction, the Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati District vide Notification under No. F.9 (12)-REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 26.10.2010 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had acquired the following piece of land:

Description of acquired land

District-Gomati, Sub-Division-Udaipur, Tehshil- Dakshin Chandrapur, Mouja- Dakshin Chandrapur, Plot no.1920/5088, Khatian no.2158, Class-Nal, area-0.13 acres.

The compensation of the land was assessed by the L.A. Collector @ Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) per kani and a total amount of Rs.1,31,625/-(Rupees one lakh thirty one thousand six hundred twenty five) was awarded to the claimant including all statutory benefits provided under the L.A. Act.

Being dissatisfied, the claimant-respondent No.1 had sought for reference.

On reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the matter was adjudicated by the Ld. L.A. Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur.

The claimant had demanded Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs) per kani for acquisition of the above scheduled land on the ground that the valuation of the land is much more than that of the valuation as assessed by the L.A. Collector, Gomati District. The acquired land was having all the facilities and amenities, like Schools, Hospitals, Colleges, Stadium, etc.

On the other hand, the L.A. Collector, Gomati District and the appellant herein, i.e. the Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway had contested the suit by filing counter statement. In their counter statement, they have stated that the valuation of the land, as assessed by the L.A. Collector is correct, and while making assessment, the L.A. Collector has considered the importance and potentialities of the acquired land.

During the proceedings, the claimant-respondent No.1 had adduced himself as PW1. His claim is based on two title Deeds, i.e. Exbt.1 and Exbt.2. Exbt.1 was executed on 18.01.2010, having Deed No.1-128 of 2010 and Exbt.2 is a Deed of Relinquishment being No.258 of 2010, which was executed on 09.02.2010. In Exbt.1 Deed, I find that it was sold for a consideration money of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) for the land measuring 4 shataks. In the second Deed, i.e. Exbt.2, 5 shataks of land was relinquished by the executrix in favour of one Uttam Sarkar for a consideration money of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand).

This Court finds that Exbt.1 was executed between the two full-blooded brothers. The said deed was executed between Sri Haradhan Sarkar as vendee and Sri Ratan Sarkar as vendor-both are sons of Sri Subodh Ch. cSarkar. The second deed i.e. the Deed of Relinquishment bearing No.258 of 2010 was executed between one Sri Uttam Sarkar, who is the son of Late Manoranjan Sarkar as the recipient of the Deed of Relinquishment and the executrixes who are his full-blooded sisters and daughters of Late Manoranjan Sarkar. The land was acquired under notification dated 26.10.2010. The deeds (Exbt.1 & 2) were executed just proximate to the date of acquisition and that too within the full-blooded brothers and sisters as afore-stated.

In my opinion, both the Deeds are collusive and was executed just a few days prior to the time of acquisition of the land. The valuation, as determined in these two deeds is not reliable at all and cannot form the basis of determining the market price of the acquired land. The claimant-respondent No.1 did not produce any other document or evidence in support of his claim that the acquired land was fetching more value before the date of the notification of acquisition than the value as determined by the L.A. Collector, Gomati District. As such, the valuation of the land, as determined by the Ld. L.A. Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur is not sustainable both on points of law and facts.

It is made clear that the Courts should be cautious and should go for more reliable evidence when the sale deeds produced by the claimant appear to be collusive one. When a deed is executed between the full-blooded brothers under a fixed valuation and it is proximate to the time of acquisition, then, the Courts should proceed cautiously to determine the valuation of the said land on the basis of this type of sale deed. It is true, due to improvement of the connectivity through railway, the valuation of the land is being increased day by day. But, in absence of any cogent evidence, to say the least any sorts of reliable evidence, the Courts should not enhance the amount of compensation as determined by the learned L.A. Collector abnormally.

Another feature, in the instant case, comes to the fore that learned L.A. Judge while discussing the evidence had observed thus:

"......On perusal of the map(Exhibit 3/1 to 3/2) it is seen that the acquired plot is situated at a long distance from the plots under said two deeds.............................................No road link is found available in the acquired plot as per the map. Thus acquired land was of much low potentiality than the land under Ext.1. The deed under Ext.2 was a deed of release where no monetary transaction took place; so it would not be safe to rely on the same."

In this situation, I am at a loss to understand on what basis the Ld. L.A. Judge has enhanced the amount of compensation as awarded by L.A. Collector and for the same reason, the judgment of the Ld. L.A. Judge enhancing the market value from Rs.3,00,000/- as awarded by the L.A. Collector to Rs.7,50,000/- is unreasonable and, thus interfered with.

It is noticed that the plots, in question, under acquisition are nul classes of lands. As I have already observed that these plots of land have no importance at all being totally barren and unused and the appellant has to spend a big amount to develop the land. The learned L.A. Judge has deducted 60% as development cost. In my opinion, it should be 70% instead of 60%. It is also observed in some of the cases relating to the same classes of land, the learned L.A. Judge has deducted 70% after considering all aspects that surfaced incourse of proceeding under reference. In my opinion, the learned L.A. Judge has correctly deducted 70% against the development cost, applying the ration laid down in Subh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444 and Kasturi vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354.

However, keeping in mind the increasing trend of market price of the land day by day, the determination of the value of the land in question at Rs.3,00,000/-, by the L.A. Collector, is also on the lower side and inconsistent with the pace of developmental activities undertaken in and around the areas under acquisition.

Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, deduction of 70% [30% for distance between land acquired and land under sale exemplars, 15% for difference in quantum of land, 20% for potentiality, 5% for difference in status of land because land of the exemplars were residential as apparent from boundary] will be just and appropriate. Accordingly, the market price of the land has been assessed at Rs. 20,00,000 - 70% = Rs. 6,00,000/- per kani. As such, the determination of the land value @ Rs.7,50,000/- by the Ld. L.A. Judge is modified and reduced to Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs) per kani instead of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand).

For the reasons as stated above, it is clarified that the L.A. Collector, Gomati District shall quantify and pay compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1, Sri Subhankar Baidya at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs) per kani. Needless to say, the entire award shall include all statutory benefits including interest and solatium etc., as awarded by the learned L.A. Judge.

In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed in part, in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

Send down the L.C. Records. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to L.A. Collector, Gomati District immediately to ensure payment of compensation as awarded by this judgment. It is made clear that the L.A. Collector, Gomati District shall make the payment of compensation within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.