Deputy Commandant vs Sujay Dhar And Ors.

Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Asst. SG appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent- LA Collector.

This appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act, 1894 arises out of the judgment and award dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court no.4, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc (LA) 171 of 2014 .

Briefly stated, the land of the respondent-claimant was acquired vide notification dated 14.10.2009 and declaration dated 16.12.2009 for establishing BOP, Durgabari under Sadar Sub-Division in West Tripura District.

Having receipt of the notice, the respondent-claimant being the land owner appeared before the LA Collector. During proceeding, the LA Collector has relied upon 10 (ten) sale instances and assessed the market price of the land @Rs. 40,000/- per kani. The respondent-land owner was dis-satisfied with the award. He has sought for reference. The learned LA Judge accepted the reference. During proceeding, both the respondent and the LA Collector including the requiring department filed claim statement as well as counter statement. Issues were framed. On the basis of those issues, learned LA Judge recorded evidence let in by the parties. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, considering the documents i.e. the sale instances, learned LA Judge had assessed the market price of the land in question @Rs. 70,000/- per kani. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said assessment, the requiring department i.e. Commandant, BSF, has preferred the instant appeal.

Mr. Majumder, learned Asst. SG has submitted that the learned LA Judge without any sort of evidence had enhanced the market price of the land in question. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 11 of the judgment where the learned LA Judge had observed that though the claimant-respondent had filed khatian of the land, but, it is found that the acquired land is tilla class of land. Furthermore, the map itself detects that the acquired land is far away from the exemplar sale deeds. Mr. Majumder, learned Asst. SG, has submitted that the learned LA Judge has relied upon two sale deeds, one was sold at Rs. 70,000/- per kani for land measuring 0.40 acres but, it appears that the said land under the said deed is a viti-tilla class of land and, another sale instance upon which the learned LA Judge has relied upon is also a viti-tilla class of land, which was sold @ Rs. 1 lakh per kani. According to Mr. Majumder, viti-tilla class of land cannot be compared with the tilla class of land. Learned ASG, has also drawn my attention to the other sale instances.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to those sale instances. It is revealed that those sale instances relate to chara-tilla class of land. To reiterate, the acquired land is a tilla class of land.

It is noticed that the learned LA Judge has not considered the sale instance comprising the land which was sold @Rs. 1 lakh per kani but, he has considered the land which has been sold @Rs. 70,000/- per kani. It is established principle of law that a guess work is always permissible when the evidence is not clear before the court. According to me, the approach of the learned LA Judge is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity considering the market price of the land @Rs. 70,000/- per kani.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

Interim application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Send down the L.C.Rs.