AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. P. Gautam and Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The facts in brief are that, the learned L.A. Collector issued notification under Section-4 of the L.A. Act, acquired the land in question measuring 0.33 acres under Brajapur, Sheet No. 1, Sepahijala District. The learned L.A. Collector awarded Rs.4,48,746/- per kani including statutory benefits.
Being aggrieved, the claimants sought for reference under Section-18 of the L.A. Act. The private respondents in this appeal filed claims statements. The requiring department as well as the learned L.A. Collector filed their counter statements.
During proceeding before the learned L.A. Judge, all the parties adduced their respective evidences. At the closure of recording evidence, the learned L.A. Judge heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. On consideration of the submission of the counsel for the parties and the evidence and materials on record, the learned L.A. Judge determined the market price of the land at Rs.14, 30,568/- per kani.
Being aggrieved with this award vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 passed in Misc (LA) 95 of 2014, the present appeal has been preferred.
Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned L.A. Judge in determining the rate of compensation of the acquired land had taken into consideration of an exemplar deed which is adjacent to the road and comprising very small piece of land measuring 1 kara 17 dhur and the land in question under acquisition measures 0.33 acres. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that the claimant, the private respondents herein, have failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the acquired land is situated at the close proximity of the exemplar deed (Exbt.A). The claimants also failed to produce any map wherefrom the distance of both the acquired land and the land of exemplar deed could be measured.
I have perused the records and also considered the submission of Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- respondents. In my opinion, the learned L.A. Judge has committed serious error both on points of law and facts.
True it is, that when there is no clear evidence, the learned L.A. Judge is empowered to exercise some guesswork, but, that guesswork must be reasonable. Without any sort of evidence, the learned L.A. Judge has enhanced the market price of the land from Rs.4,48,746/- to Rs. 14, 30,568/-. This kind of guesswork, in my opinion, is not permissible in law.
Accordingly, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record, in my opinion, the value of the land should be Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani instead of Rs. 14, 30,568/-. The claimants i.e. the private respondents are entitled to get the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani. Needless to say that, the said amount of compensation shall carry all statutory benefits including interest under Section-34 of the L.A. Act.
In view of above, the present application stands allowed in part and thus, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.