Chief Executive Officer vs Manju Rani Ghosh And Ors

Heard Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-requiring Department as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.

This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.05.2017 and award dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No. Civil Misc. (L.A.) No.17 of 2012.

The brief facts are that vide notification issued under Section 4 read with Section-17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for short) dated 27.06.2008 and declaration dated 28.08.2008, the Land acquisition officer, North Tripura acquired land measuring 1.688 acres belonging to the predecessor of the respondents, namely, Barun Baran Ghosh along with others for the purpose of construction of shopping market (Mall) at Dharmangar.

The L.A. Collector having heard the parties had assessed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- per kani for a playground and viti class of land along with other statutory benefits.

Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 had sought for reference which was accepted by learned L.A. Judge. In course of proceeding, after considering the claim statements filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and counter statement filed by appellant in the present case, learned L.A. Judge had framed the following issues:-

"(i) Whether the claim is maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Whether the L.A. Collector has assessed the compensation for acquisition of the suit land appropriately after taking into consideration the prevailing market price of the adjoining land and all the other relevant factors?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation at the enhanced rate as prayed for?

(iv) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief?

After recording evidence and having heard the learned counsels, learned L.A Judge has enhanced the compensation amount out of acquisition of land in question to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/- per kani. Being aggrieved, the requiring-Department i.e., the appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

After perusal of the records, it is revealed that the claimant-respondents No.1, 2 & 3 had produced two numbers of sale deed valued at Rs.5,00,00,000/-per kani. On the other hand, the L.A. Collector while adducing evidence had introduced six numbers of deeds, the value of which are ranged from Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.85,00,000/- per kani.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge. For reference, para-12 of the judgment may be reproduced herein below:-

"12. In the present case the land involves in the examplar deeds marked as Exhibit-2 and 3 are very small areas adjacent to main road and it appears that those lands were specifically purchased for the purpose of Dokan not for any other purpose. So those lands cannot be considered. The examplar deeds were executed in the year 2005 and in 2006 whereas date of acquiring notification was in the year 2008. So examplar deeds cannot be considered to be concocted deeds. The purpose of notification shows that land was acquired for construction of shopping market(Mall) at Dharmanagar. So, potentially of the land cannot be ignored. So as to ascertain the market value of the land at the time of acquisition some gestimate(sic guess work) shall have to be done as the examplar deeds are in respect of small quantities of land. ..................."

Thereafter, the learned L.A. Judge had relied upon some judgments passed by the Apex Court as well as this Court.

At para-16 of the judgment, the learned L.A. Judge in his findings had observed thus:-

"The purpose of acquisition in this case is, however, quite different from the above noted case law and in the instant case, land was acquired for construction of shopping market (Mall) at Dharmanagar. So, definitely the acquired land being a playground and viti plot as well as not far away from the main road has got its own potentially. From the evidence on record, I find that deed no.1-2767 dated 04-12-2006 proved as exhibit-2 and deed no.1-505 dated 26-02-2005 proved as exhibit-3 are the highest exampler deeds. But the quantum of land in both of the deeds are so small that it cannot be considered as an exampler deed. No evidence is adduced by exhibiting map of the acquired land showing the distance of the land of exampler deed from the acquired land. On the other hand, the exampler deeds of OP shows that highest land value was Rs.85,00,000/- per kani. It is also proved that the acquired land was a developed land. So, deduction under the head of development is not justified in this case. Moreover we all experienced the Govt. Has fixed a ceiling value of land area wise for the purpose of acquisition and beyond the ceiling value acquisition authority does not entertain deeds of higher value. Actual value of land always remain higher. In this acquisition, I consider that Rs.85,00,000/- per kani being the value of the highest exampler of the L.A. Collector will be the proper value of the land prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The claimants are thus entitled to get compensation at this rate as land value of this case. The referring claimants are thus entitled to get all other stator benefits and accordingly all the issues are decided in favour of the referring claimants. "

Accordingly, the learned L.A. Judge had determined the value of the land @ of Rs. 85,00,000/-per kani.

Having considered the findings returned by L.A. Judge, I do not find any illegalities and irrationalities to assess the value of the land @ Rs.85,00,000/- per kani.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chowdhury has submitted that originally two brothers including the predecessor of the respondents were the owners of the land. A portion of the plot was acquired by the L.A. Collector. Award was declared by the L.A. Collector and under reference, the L.A. Judge had passed an award assessing the value of the land @ Rs.50,00,000/- per kani considering the same sale instances which are produced in the present case. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondents herein did not pefer any appeal against the said award. This is the only ground raised in this appeal.

On the other hand, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that the non-preferring of an appeal against the judgment cannot be the sole ground to defend or oppose a judgment passed in another case. More so, the L.A. Collector while assessing the market value of the land did not even consider the judgment of that case. Even before the reference Court, the appellant did not produce the judgment for consideration of the learned L.A. Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. As such, the judgment of another case cannot be relied upon to determine or assess the valuation of land of the present case.

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, this Court has perused the examination-in-chief adduced by the executive officer O.P.W.-1 in connection with this case.

In para-4 of his examination-in-chief, the Chief Executive Officer, the appellant herein, had stated as under:-

"4. It may be mentioned that the amount of compensation has been assessed on the basis of sale deed vide Nos.1-1352 dt. 02-07-2008, 1-153 dt. 02-07-2008, 1-1471 dt. 23-07-2008, 1-1472 dt. 23-07-2008, 1-1959 dt. 05-11-2008, 1-1960 dt. 05-11-2008 as well as Govt. Approved rate available in the surrounding area of acquired plots (the assessment note had already been furnished in the record during reference U/S.18 of L.A.Act). The assessment note furnished may be exhibited & marked."

I have perused the assessment note wherein it is revealed that the L.A. Collector has relied upon the sale deeds as mentioned in para-4 stated here-in-above. It is clear from the assessment note and examination-in-chief as adduced by the appellant that while assessing market value of the land, L.A Collector did not consider the judgment passed in acquisition of some portion of the same acquired land. Even in course of proceeding of the present case before L.A. Judge, they did not lay any evidence in this regard.

In my opinion, had the judgment been produced at the time of proceeding before learned L.A. Judge, the respondent-claimants herein could have clarified the position as to why they did not prefer appeal against that judgment. That apart, since no reference has been made and no evidence has been adduced in regard to the facts of that case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned L.A. Judge ought to have declared award on the basis of the judgment passed in connection with another case. Accordingly, I don't find any merit to interfere with the findings returned by learned L.A. Judge and the award as assessed therein.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.