AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and award dated 24.06.2011 in Misc. L.A. No. 41 of 2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3.
[3] This appeal has been preferred by the requiring department where even the L.A. Collector is not a party. On a query from this Court both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent have stated that the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and award dated 24.06.2011. It has been also stated that the appellant did not file the statement of fact opposing the prayer for enhancing the rate made by the respondent herein.
[4] The brief fact that would be essential for deciding the case is that by the notification under No. F.9(12)-REV/ACN.XIV/98 dated 23.02.1998, the appropriate Government acquired the land from the respondent for construction of N.F. Railway line at Badharghat. The land measuring .34 acres (nal, nala) under Plot Nos. 7473, 7475, 7474/14566, 7477/23326/P of Mouja-Badharghat, Sheet No. 5/P, Khatian No. 2181 was acquired on observing the process. That apart, a piece of land measuring 0.15 acres (bastu) under Plot No. 7476 of Mouja - Badharghat, Sheet No. 5/P, Khatian No. 2181 has been acquired for the same purpose.
[5] The Land Acquisition Collector after making the inquiry under Section 11 published the award providing compensation for the land @ Rs. 1,05,000/- per kani for nal class of land and Rs. 1,40,000/- per kani for the bastu class of land.
[6] Being aggrieved by the said determination, the respondent asked for reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. The reference has been answered by the L. A. Judge by the impugned judgment and award. According to the respondent the rate that has been determined by the L. A. Collector is so inadequate that it can hardly be accepted by any reasonable man. The respondent No. 7 has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani for purpose of determining the compensation.
[7] The L.A. Collector, however in the reference proceeding, filed the counter-statement contending that the rate as has been determined by him is quite reasonable and such rate was determined on appreciation of the contemporaneous sale instances and on proper survey of the location and advantages attached to the land. Thus, there was no necessity for enhancing the rate as prayed for. But the appellant was the O.P. No. 1 and they did not file any counter statement as stated. Even they did not adduce any evidence for any purpose.
[8] It is also not in dispute that the respondent relied on a sale deed No.1-1149 dated 26.02.1996 (Exhibit-1). For the L.A. Collector or for the requiring department no documentary evidence was introduced in the proceeding. The L. A. Collector produced the assessment sheet and the relevant document in the proceeding.
[9] From the said records it is found that the respondent filed two documents including the sale deed No. 1-1149 dated 26.02.1996 (Exhibit-1) but that document was not considered by the L.A. Collector. it has been observed in the assessment sheet as under:
"The deed No. 1-1149 dated 26.02.1996 has not been considered since it was outside the acquired land. The other deed is common to the list of Survivor. The Vendors & Vendeeds of all the deeds were examined and the deeds were relied upon for determination of the market value of land. The deeds collected are as at Annexure-II. The 9 deeds are categorized as below representing the value of each belt of land."
[10] In sequel, the L.A. Collector has determined the rate according to the '3 belt areas" and given the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- per kani since his land belonged to sheet No. 5/P and Khatian No. 2181.
[11] The Land Acquisition Judge while answering the reference has observed in the impugned judgment as under:
"8. It reveals from the record that the referring- claimant produced only one certified copy of registered sale deed No. 1-1149 dated 26.02.1996. it reveals from the above sale transaction that only 3 gandas of 'bastu' class of land was sold @ 5,00,000/-per kani in the year 1996. The total acquired land in this case is more than 1 kani 4 gandas which is a very big area of land whereas the sale transaction submitted by the referring-claimant is a very small piece of land, i.e. 3 gandas of 'bastu' class of land. A prudent buyer would not certainly purchase more than 1 kani 4 gandas of land at the rate of very small area of land, i.e. 3 gandas of land. It is observed by our Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that the value of small area is not helpful in determining the value of big plot of land. Small area generally fetch a taken into consideration, a reasonable deduction has to be made from the total value. Accordingly, one-third deduction of Rs. 5,00,000/- is considered reasonable in this case and so after deduction the rate per kani of 'bastu' class of land comes to Rs. 3,33,333/-. The above land was sold on 26.02.1996 whereas the land was acquired on 23.02.1998. Within the period of two years the rate of the land would certainly increased and it is considered that the rate of 'bastu' class of land would be certainly Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani. 'Nal' class of land is undoubtedly lesser inquality than the 'bastu' class of landnad so in respect of the 'Nal' class of land it is assessed at Rs. 3,25,000/- per kani. So, in view of the above findings I do hereby assess that the referring-claimant should get compensation @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani for his 'bastu' class of land and @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per kani for his 'nal' class of land."
[12] Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding of the L. A. Judge rather, the determination of the land rate by the L. A. Collector was faulty because the premises on which the deed No. 1- 1149 dated 26.02.1996 has been discarded is absolutely unsustainable.
[13] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has however submitted that the respondent has failed to produce any record to show the location of the land as described in the sale deed No. 1-1149 dated 26.02.1996 (Exhibit-1) is in close proximity of the acquired land. Therefore, this enhancement has been made completely on assuming that the land is nearby the acquired land.
[14] Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties perusing the said sale deed No. 1-1149 (Exhibit-1), this Court finds that the land demised in the sale deed is within the Mouja Badharghat, khatian No. 6562 whereas the acquired land is under the Sheet No. 5/P and Khatian No. 2181 under the same Mouja.
[15] From the khatian No. 2181, the apparent distance between the two plots cannot be determined. But these are in the same Mouja and since the land has been acquired to lay the railway line, it is bound to be located linearly along with the land described in the sale deed of the land as relied by the respondent. This may not be enough. But the appellant has not produced any record to repel the claim
[16] For the respondent, one Anjali Sur has categorically stated that the acquired land is located in a stone through distance from Dasarath Dev Stadium and half-kilometer away from the Badharghat railway station. There was no cross-examination on those advantages as narrated by the respondent. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the location, advantages and the value as recorded vis-a- vis contemporary sale instance, the enhancement as directed by the Judge cannot stated to be unreasonable. Hence, there is no infirmity in the finding as reproduced above.
[17] As there is no direction in the impugned judgment to pay the enhanced award, it is directed that the respondent No. 2 and the L.A. Collector shall pay the said amount jointly or separately within a period of 4 months from the date when the respondent land-loser shall submit a copy of this judgment to the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the award/decree accordingly and send down the LCRs thereafter.