Deputy Chief Engineer vs Pradip Das And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A appearing for the respondents.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, Gomati, Udaipur in Misc. (L.A.) No.75 of 2014.

[3] From the referring claimants (the respondents No.1-5) the land measuring 0.40 acres (Nal class) pertaining to Plot No.615, Khatian No.319 of Mouja- Uttar Chandrapur, Under R.K. Pur P.S., Sub-Division-Udaipur was acquired for purpose of construction of new railway line from Agartala to Sabroom. The Notification No.F.9(02)/REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 28.01.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 28.01.2010 and that was followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 06.02.2010.

[4] The Land Acquisition Collector, having observed the process, awarded Rs.90,000/- per kani for the acquired land (Nal class). The respondents No.1-5 being dissatisfied with the said determination pressed for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The said reference being Misc. (L.A.) No.75 of 2014 has been answered by the Judgment dated 05.10.2016 whereby the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the rate from Rs.90,000/- per kani to Rs.7,50,000/- per kani. The appellants being the requisitioning department being aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal.

[5] Mr. A. De, learned counsel has categorically submitted that by applying the principal as laid down by Mehrawal Khewajil Trust (Regd.) Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 [Para-15 of the report] the Land Acquisition Judge has committed serious error. That passage be reproduced for reference.

"15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale-deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale-deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."

[6] The purpose of Khewaji Trust is completely different. On a bare reading of Para-15 of the said report, it would transpire that the principle is structured for evaluation of the rate on the basis of sale transactions which are considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. According to the apex court, the sale transactions which are considered by the Land Acquisition Collector are to be made basis. The highest rate in the said sale transactions for the similar class of land be adopted to determine the just market rate.

[7] According to Mr. De, learned counsel very casually the said the principle appears to have been applied by the Land Acquisition Judge. There is no dispute that the respondents No.1-5, being referring- claimants, have relied 3 (three) sale deeds before the Land Acquisition Judge along with the settlement map of land for claiming the higher rate. By the sale deed No.1-2820 (Exbt.1A), a piece of land measuring 0.06 acre was purchased on consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- meaning Rs.8,00,000/- per kani. The sale deed dated 21.12.2006 (Exbt.1a) was as well considered with the sale deed No.1-810 dated 04.01.2010. By the sale deed [Exbt.1b] and a piece of land measuring 0.04 acre [Nal class] was of land was purchased at Rs.1,00,000/- per kani.

[8] In the highest sale transaction so far as demonstrated the rate is Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. Similarly by the Sale Deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 (Exbt.1C) another piece of land measuring 0.04 acre was purchased on consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- meaning Rs.30,00,000/- per kani. While evaluating those exemplar deeds, the Land Acquisition Judge has observed that he has taken the highest exemplar deed. Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that by applying the principle of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) and thereafter, out of the total amount so deduced 75% has been deducted based on the decision of the apex court in Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) SCC 354 and thus, the rate came to Rs.7,50,000/-.

[9] Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that in an appeal being L.A. App. No.19 of 2017, [The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Abdul Mannan Miah and Others,] this court decided the rate by the judgment dated 17.07.2018 for the land at Uttar Chandrapur Mouja which had been acquired by the same notification dated 28.01.2010. This court after appreciating the various deeds which were appreciated by the Land Acquisition Collector had reduced the rate to Rs.6,00,000/- per kani for Nal Class of the land under acquisition.

[10] Mr. De, learned counsel has therefore submitted that, the similar rate may be awarded for the referring-claimants for purpose of determining the compensation for acquisition of their land measuring 0.40 acres.

[11] This court finds substantive force in the submission of Mr. De, learned counsel, as this court has analyzed the rate in the said judgment dated 17.07.2018 for the land situated in the close proximity and such there is no embargo to apply the said rate for the land as acquired from the respondents No.1-5. Accordingly, the land rate is determined at Rs.6,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land.

[12] The compensation has to be calculated on the basis of the said rate. The referring-claimants, the respondents herein, would get the value of the land at Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. To be precise, the referring claimants would get the additional compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 23 (1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and the solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

[13] That apart, the respondents No.1-5 shall also get interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount in terms of this judgment and award in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge for immediate disbursement to the referring-claimants and the deposit shall be made within a period of 4 (four) months from today.

In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.