AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. De, learned Panel counsel appearing on behalf of NF Railway, the appellant herein. Also heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel alongwith Ms. S. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.
The present land acquisition appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned LA Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. (LA) 219 of 2014 wherein the learned LA Judge has enhanced the award out of compensation from Rs. 50,000/-per kani as awarded by the learned LA Collector to Rs. 5 lakh per kani.
Briefly stated, having entertained a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the learned LA Judge had considered the claim statement as well as the counter statement filed by the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 16.
The lands in question were acquired by the learned LA Collector for the purpose of construction of new railway line from Kumarghat to Agartala vide notification No. F.9(9)-REV/ ACQ/VI/99 dated 18.06.1999 and subsequent declaration vide No. F.9(9)-REV/ACQ/VI/99 dated 31.07.1999. After notification, notices were sent upon the claimants to raise their objection. All the claimants i.e. respondents no. 1 to 16 in this appeal, had appeared before the learned LA Collector raising their grievances about the compensation.
It is revealed from the assessment note that on the date of hearing most of the land owners were present. Some of the land owners prayed for correction of their land records but, none of the land owners claimed any rate nor produced any documents for fixation of land value. So, valuation of the acquired land was fixed as per sale instances, which were produced before the learned LA Collector.
While awarding compensation, the learned LA Collector had taken into account as many as 11 (eleven) sale deeds which were executed within the time span of the year 1996 to 1998. From the assessment note, it further reveals that the learned LA Collector himself had visited the acquired land at the time of hearing to determine the market price. He had observed that the acquired land was used only for cultivation and there was no other importance of the acquired land. He had taken into account 5(five) numbers of sale instances which were almost adjacent plot of the acquired land. The following sale instances have been considered for assessing the market value of the acquired land under Bankimnagar Mouja sheet No. 4 for the nal class of land:
Sl. No
Sale deed No. & date
Plot No
Area (in acre)
Value
Rate per kani
1.
1-794 dt. 9.2.96
821(P)
0.20
Rs. 25,000/
Rs. 50,000/-
2.
1-5333 dt. 4.10.96
8827
0.14
Rs. 20,000/-
Rs. 57,142/-
Total
0.34 acres
Rs. 45,000/-
Rs. 1,07,142/-
Rs. 53,571/-
After considering all the aspects of the land acquired, the learned LA Collector had determined the value of the acquired lands, in question @ Rs. 50,000/- per kani for nal class of land. Being aggrieved of the determination of the land value by the learned LA Collector, all the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 16 herein had sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.
The learned LA Judge incourse of proceeding have accepted the claim statement filed by the land owners as well as the counter claim statements filed by the LA Collector and the appellants being the requiring department. The learned LA Judge recorded the evidence led on by the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 16. After completion of recording of evidence and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned LA Judge had enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakh per kani from Rs. 50,000/- per kani as awarded by the learned LA Collector. This is under challenge before this court.
Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the NF Railway has submitted that the enhancement ex facie is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. He has further submitted that the learned LA Judge has relied upon one sale deed bearing No. 1-351 which is far away from the acquired land. Moreover, the quantum of land is very small under the sale deed No. 1-351. The claimant-respondents had failed to adduce any evidence that the land under sale deed No. 1-351 is in close proximity of her acquired land. Mr. De, has further submitted that the learned LA Collector has relied upon as many as 11 (eleven) sale deeds which are in close proximity of the acquired land and all lands are nal class of land and being nal class of land, these lands are required only for the purpose of cultivation. According to Mr. De, the award as passed by the learned LA Collector is quite reasonable, so he has urged to maintain the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned LA Collector by way of setting aside the judgment passed by the learned LA Judge.
On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has submitted that the findings returned by the learned LA Judge is reasonable considering the increasing trend of market price of the land in the State of Tripura. The government has undertaken many developmental activities and in view of these activities, the market price of the lands has been increased abnormally. However, learned counsel has admitted that the claimant-respondents have failed to place any cogent evidence to justify their claims.
Having due regard to the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, at the outset, I have perused the judgment passed by the learned LA Judge to find out the basis of increasing the rate of compensation in his award dated 24.07.2018. The learned LA Judge has observed that:
"No doubt determination of market price of land is a very difficult task for a Court and it cannot be done without a minimum fault. Some sorts of arbitrariness or assumption and presumption has to be applied in all such cases. However, the best acceptable assessment so far the law has settled in this regard is that of taking into consideration the sale transactions of comparable lands. It is a common practice of the LA Collectors in all LA cases that they award compensation for the acquired plots of land on the basis of government sale rate of the land of concerned locality and mouja but for determination of prevailing market price that standard for assertion of market price of the acquired land cannot be accepted at all because government fixed the rate of land of a particular area to prevent loss of revenue by way of illegal transaction of land in between the buyers and sellers and that government chart prevents the parties in a transaction to sell a particular plot of land below the government rate but there is no impediment from the side of the government for the parties in a transaction to sell a plot of land at much higher rate than the prescribed government rate".
From the above observation, it is evident that the learned LA Judge has held that (i) assessment should be made considering the sale transaction of comparable lands; (ii) the LA Collector should not assess the market price of the land based on the fixed government rate; and (iii) there is no impediment for the parties to sell land at higher rate than that of the rate as fixed by the government.
Now, while deciding the market price of the acquired land, the LA Judge has returned his final findings thus:
"10. ... It is a fact that the referring claimant was not in a position to produce any cogent evidence that prevailing market price of the acquired land was more than than of compensation for the acquired land. However, considering all factors including the increasing trend of land rate in the State of Tripura, I am of the considered view that the claim of the referring claimants will be justified if the rate of compensation for the acquired land is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani".
The learned LA Judge has observed that it is admitted position that the acquired land is classified as 'nal' and 'chara' class of land.
Having perused this finding of the learned LA Judge, I have taken note of the evidence as led on by the claimant-respondents to justify their demands that the acquired land was fetching higher price than that of the price, as determined by the learned LA Collector and, further what evidence they have led to substantiate the rate of the enhancement as has been done by the learned LA Judge while determining the market price of the land @ Rs. 5 lakh per kani.
Smt. Mangati Debbarma had submitted her examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After careful scrutiny of her examination-in-chief, it is revealed that she has never stated that the market price of the acquired land was of Rs. 5 lakh per kani at the time of acquisition of the land. She has made certain blurred statements that the acquired lands are having higher potentiality for both commercial and industrial purpose. The lands in question are in close proximity of National Highway, National Institute of Technology, TSR headquarter and having schools, colleges, market and enjoy all facilities and amenities but, she has failed to produce any material to substantiate her claim. Even the claimant-respondents no. 1 to16 did not produce the site map from which the court can, at least, arrive at a finding that the acquired lands are in close proximity of those important places. In my opinion, in absence of proof it is difficult to return a conclusive finding that the lands in question are in close proximity of those important places. However, she has filed one document i.e. certified copy of sale deed no. 351 of 1994 which is marked as Exhibit-2.
The learned LA Collector also has adduced evidence and has relied upon 11 (eleven) sale deeds. The assessment note of the LA Collector also has been brought on record. From the said sale deeds, I find that the determination of the market price of the acquired land is in conformity with the market price, as indicated in those sale deeds, as are given in the chart here-in-above.
I have also taken into consideration the observation made by the learned LA Collector that the claimant-respondents have failed to establish their claim by adducing any cogent and reasonable evidence.
Next, I am in agreement with the observation of the learned LA Judge that while assessing the compensation, the sale instances of comparable lands should be taken into consideration, but, I find that having held so, the learned LA judge himself has committed error in determining the market price of the lands because he himself has stated that the claimant-respondents have failed to establish their claim by adducing any cogent evidence. Ultimate conclusion is that, there is no comparable sale instances before the court to determine the market price prevalent at the time of acquisition. Secondly, it is true that the sale transaction can happen at a much higher price than that of the price as fixed by the government. But, in the instant case, I find that the learned LA Collector has not relied upon the rate as per the fixed rate of the government. He has taken into account the comparable sale instances which were transacted between the period from 1996 to 1998 while the lands were acquired in the year 1999. So, all the sale deeds, he has relied upon are in close proximity of the date of acquisition of the lands in question under notification dated 18.06.1999. Thus, in my opinion, the learned LA Collector has not committed any error in determining the market price of the acquired lands in question.
Next, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the observation of the learned LA Judge that it is very difficult task to determine the market price of the lands and there may be some arbitrariness and sometimes there may be some assumption and presumption.
True it is, that the market price of the lands in Tripura had been increasing day by day due to various developmental activities undertaken by the government. It is also equally true that there may be an increase of the rate of land @ 8% per year. In the instant case, the first deed relied upon was executed in the year 1996 when it was found that the sale price of a deed was fetching a market price of Rs. 50,000/- per kani. Accordingly, applying the aforesaid settled principle, since the lands were acquired in the year 1999, the valuation of the lands should be around Rs. 75,000/- per kani considering the increase at the rate of 8% per year. Apart from that, I have already held that due to undertaking of several developmental activities, there was a trend of increased price of lands. Thus, on overall assessment, keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, the market price of the acquired lands would be justified if the value of the same is determined at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand) only per kani.
Having held so, the judgment and award dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned LA Judge enhancing the value of the land from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- is not sustainable and, is thus, set aside and quashed. Accordingly, this court has determined the market price of the land @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per kani and the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 16 would be entitled to get compensation of the acquired lands @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per kani alongwith all statutory benefits including interest from the date of acquisition of lands.
Accordingly,, the present appeal is allowed in part, in the above terms. No costs.
The L.A. Collector shall quantify the actual amount of compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per kani, as aforestated and, pay such quantified amount within a period of 3(three) months from the date of this judgment.
Send back the L.C.Rs.