AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals being The LA APP No.72 of 2019 [The In-Charge, HR-ER, ONGC, Tripura Asset vs. Gouranga Chandra Chakraborty and Another] and LA APP No.73 of 2019 [The In-Charge, HR-ER, ONGC, Tripura Asset vs. Anita Rani Das and Another] are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as by the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 LA Act in short, being notification No.F.9(18)-REV/ACQ/XIV/09 dated 26.06.2019 the land was acquired from the claimant-respondent [the respondent No.1].
By the appeal being LA APP No.72 of 2019 the judgment and award dated 28.02.2019 delivered in Civil Misc. [LA 72 of 2011] has been challenged whereas by the appeal being LA APP No.73 of 2019 the judgment dated 28.02.2019 delivered in Civil Misc. [LA 78 of 2011] has been challenged. On comparison of those judgments dated 28.02.2019 it appears that the land from the referring-claimant has been acquired from mouja Jogendranagar sheet No.1. For further details, the acquired land of the referring claimants are given in a tabular form:
The land of the referringclaimant in concerning LA APP No.72 of 2019
The land of the referring-claimant in concerning LA APP No.73 of 2019
The land acquired measures 0.0150 acres pertaining to Khatian No.6920, CS Plot No.3437/ P classified as Tilla
The land acquired measures 0.0240 acre pertaining to Khatian No.8050, CS Plot No.3326/P classified as bastu/nal
After enquiry under Section 11 of the LA Act the LA Collector and having considered a series of sale-deeds as collected during the enquiry, the LA Collector assessed the land value. For purpose of reference a description of those sale-deeds as recorded in the assessment sheet is reproduced hereunder:
Mouja
Plot No.
Class of land
Area in acre
Deed No & date
Total value of land
Value of land per kani
Distance from the land proposed to be acquired
Jogendra nagar
3322 3323 3324
Nal
0.19
1-632 dt. 2/2/08
Rs.30,000/-
Rs.63,158/-
20ft.
-do-
3898
Bastu
0.09
1-801 dt. 13/2/08
Rs.60,000/-
Rs.2,66,667/-
480ft.
-do-
3572
Bastu
0.02
1-1504 dt. 24/3/08
Rs.40,000/-
Rs.8,00,000/-
370ft.
-do-
3588/21633
Bastu
0.02
1-1152 dt. 4/3/08
Rs.10,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/-
200ft.
-do-
3515/21 488,351 7/21485
Bhiti (Tilla)
0.05
1-2652 dt. 30/5/08
Rs.32,000/-
Rs.2,56,000/-
210ft.
-do-
3664/21 761
Nal
0.06
1-8155 dt. 10/12/07
Rs.20,000/-
Rs.1,33,334/-
920ft.
-do-
3605
Nal
0.08
1-8550 dt. 31/12/07
Rs.40,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/-
400ft.
-do-
4283 4282
Bagan (Tilla)
0.10
1-7604 dt. 12/11/07
Rs.15,000/-
Rs.60,000/-
950ft.
-do-
3612/19 913,361 3
Tilla
0.04
1-7011 dt. 5/10/07
Rs.6,0000/-
Rs.60,000/-
650ft
-do-
3856/85 05,3856
Bastu, Bhiti
0.04
1-5570 dt. 18/5/06
Rs.65,000/-
Rs.6,50,000/-
500ft.
-do-
3682 3681 3674 3673
Tilla, Bhiti
0.42
1-6112 dt. 30/5/06
Rs.1,30,000/-
Rs.1,23,810/-
150ft.
-do-
3677 3678 3679 3680 3685
Tilla, Bhiti, Na
0.41
1-6110 dt. 30/5/06
Rs.1,30,000/-
Rs.1,26,830/-
Adjoining to the proposed road
-do-
3629
Bhiti
0.06
1-4710 dt. 2/5/06
Rs.23,000/-
Rs.1,53,333/-
575ft.
The LA Collector has also taken note of the sale-deeds which were available in LA Case No.14/BLG/2009 for construction of Drill Site and Waste Pit at the same location under Jogendranagar sheet No.1/1 and 1/3. The LA Collector has made an observation that the land of temporary acquisition consists of nal/bhiti (nal class of land) and those classes of land are found common in the proceeding by which the land of the referring-claimant was acquired. The LA Collector has taken into consideration of the deeds which were considered for that temporary acquisition of land. The considered transactions are also shown in a table below:
Mouja
Plot No.
Class of land
Area in acre
Deed No & date
Total value of land
Value of land per kani
Distan ce from the land proposed to be acquired
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jogendrana gar, Sheet No.1/1 & 1/3
310/22444
Bhiti
0.05 5
1-13708 dt.20/12/05
Rs.45,000/-
Rs.3,27,272/-
On the acquired land
-do-
310/22445
Bhiti
0.05 3
1-13567 dt.14/12/05
Rs.45,000/-
Rs.3,39,622/-
do
-do-
294/22447
Bhiti
0.05 6
1-13566 dt.14/12/05
Rs.45,000/-
Rs.3,21,428/-
do
-do-
306/22652
Bhiti
0.05 0
1-1378 dt.6/02/06
Rs.50,000/-
Rs.4,00,000/-
do
-do-
2858/22653
Bhiti
0.01 3
1-2052 dt.19/03/07
Rs.11,000/-
Rs.3,38,461/-
6100ft.
-do-
2858/22654
Bhiti
0.08 0
1-2056 dt.19/03/07
Rs.70,000/-
Rs.3,50,000/-
6100 ft.
Thus, to a greater extent having those deeds of higher value, the LA Collector determined the land rate for both the acquired lands in the following manner:
Sl. No
Classification of Land
Valuation of Land (per kani)
1.
Nal, Chara(Nal), Bhiti (Nal), Bhiti (Tilla), Tilla & Path
@ Rs.5,32,000/-
2.
Bastu (Nal) & Bastu (Tilla)
Rs.7,00,000/-
Thereafter, the compensation was calculated upon in terms of Section 23 of the LA Act. The referring-claimant in LA APP No.72 was awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs.27,120/-. The award dated 23.12.2009 has been drawn on the basis of the land value of Rs.5,32,000/-. The referring-claimant [the respondent No.1] in LA APP No.72 of 2019 having been aggrieved by the said determination pressed an application under Section 18 of the LA Act for redetermination of the compensation having regard to the contemporaneous market rate. The said reference has been answered by the LA Judge by the judgment dated 28.02.2019 [delivered in Civil Misc. LA No.72 of 2011]. By the said judgment the LA Judge has primarily examined the tenability of the claim of the referring-claimant and observed that the acquired land shall fetch Rs.15,00,000/- per kani. The land value was thus enhanced to Rs.15,00000/- per kani from Rs.5,32,000/- per kani. The LA Judge has observed in support of such enhancement that the acquired land is not far away from city of Agartala. Moreover, various sale transactions as produced before him demonstrate the yearly mobility of land value and comparative value of the land, in league with other factors. The requiring department (the appellant herein) has challenged the said judgment on the ground inter alia that on considering the photocopy of one sale-deed being sale-deed No.1-2846. The LA Judge has committed manifest error. The said sale-deed has been accepted an exemplar deed for determination of market value of the acquired land without recording its geographical proximity with the land described in the exemplar deed. Similarly, the land value of the acquired land concerning LA APP No.73 of 2019 has been enhanced to Rs.20,00000/- per kani on the similar analogy and for belonging to comparative better class of land.
The said determination is challenged by means of these appeals. The basic grounds as noted briefly earlier is that the LA Judge has committed serious error by admitting the photocopy of the sale-deed No.1-2846 dated 19.06.2009 [Exbt.1]. Based on the said sale-deed the higher market value has been quantified. But at the same time, the LA Judge has failed to notice that there is no evidence as regards the proximity of the land described in the said deed dated 19.06.2009. Hence, the determination is wholly unsustainable. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel did not make any reference to whether at the time of admitting the said photocopy the appellant [the requiring department] raised any objection in that regard.
Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimants in both the appeals has submitted that while assessing the land value, the LA Collector did not inquire properly the prevailing land rate and the mobility of land value in the area from where the land has been acquired. There is no dispute that the said area is well connected by railway station and quite close to the city of Agartala. He has further submitted that even the LA Collector has observed as follows:
"It is further observed that the land of sale deed at SI Nos. 1,6 & 7 as aforesaid were executed on Nal class of land in consideration money of Rs.63,158/-, Rs.1,33,334/- @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani located at a distance of 20ft, 920 ft & 400 ft respectively. But these lands do not have any frontage main road facility though the present proposed land is roadside. On this concept, the rates of these are considered as lesser rate. However, rate of these deeds may give an idea about trend of market price of Nal class of land prevalent in the year 2007-08 in said locality which have no frontage road facility." [Emphasis added]
Mr. Datta, learned counsel has not raised any objection in respect of considering the sale-deeds collected for the similar proceeding being LA Case No.14/BLG/2009. After considering those deeds, the rates for the different classes of land as shown above were determined by the LA Collector. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the rate as determined by the LA Judge cannot be faulted as the determination is well reasoned and not fanciful. The sale-deed [Exbt.1] was executed seven days prior to the notification for acquisition. But Mr. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that the genuineness or bonafide of the said transaction has not been questioned in the appeal. Therefore such objection cannot be entertained in the appeal.
Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred a decision of the supreme court in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vs. K. Manohar Reddy and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 707 where the apex court has observed as under:
"This court in a catena of decisions has laid down that when a large tract of land is acquired and sale instances produced for small plots as exemplar, the best course for the court to arrive at a reasonable and fair valuation is to deduct a reasonable percentage from the valuation shown in the exemplar land and on the basis thereof to arrive at a just and fair valuation."
On appreciation of the rival contentions, this court has noticed that no such deduction from the said market value has been made by the LA Judge. The first objection, as taken in the appeal, is that the admission of the sale-deed No.1-2846 dated 19.06.2009 cannot be sustained as a photocopy was admitted without following the procedure. In this regard we may refer to Section 51A of the LA Act which provides as follows:
"51A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence.-In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document."
While reading the relevant part of the testimony of PW-1, Gouranga Chandra Chakraborty, it cannot escape notice of anyone that PW-1 Gouranga Chandra Chakraborty has stated as under:
"I have filed examination-in-chief on affidavit before this Court and in support of my case I have submitted one certified copy of deed vide No.1-2846 of the year 2009 under mouja-Jogendranagar executed by one Smt. Parul Rani Debnath in favour of Sri Bikramjit Das for land measuring 0.020 acres is respectively marked as Exhibit 1 containing 9 sheets on identification."
Therefore, it is apparent that the copy which was admitted is the certified copy of the sale-deed No.1-2846 of 2009 and hence the objection raised by the appellant is discarded. So far the other objection is concerned, it requires to be considered inasmuch as a very small piece of land measuring 0.02 acre was purchased on consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- by the said sale-deed [Exbt.1] from the same mouja Jogendranagar. At this juncture, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has sought to temper his submission by stating that the rate as recorded in the sale-deed No.1-2846 [Exbt.1] would fetch land value of Rs.30,00,000/- per kani.
Mr. Datta, learned counsel having referred a decision of the apex court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 has contended that the sale-deed which might be fetch the higher land value be accepted as the exemplar for purpose of quantifying the compensation. In Mehrawal Khewaji (supra), the apex court had occasion to observe 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 in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller about the time of the acquisition. It will be only fair to apply the said principle where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government. In that event, 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.
What Mr. Datta, learned counsel has submitted in one sense is unique, but in para-15 of the said report [Mehrawal Khewaji], the apex court even at the beginning of the said passage has generally stated about the highest value reflected in the exemplars, but in the latter part the apex court has unambiguously observed that when the sale-deeds pertaining to the different transactions are relied 'on behalf of the government', the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there is strong circumstances justifying a different course. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the apex court intended to refer the exemplar which brought the highest value but there is an eminent restriction that such deeds must be relied on by the appropriate government. Exhibit-1 has not been relied by the appropriate government, but it has been relied by the referring-claimants. So directly the decision of Mehrawal Khewaji (supra) cannot be applied to have the land value from the highest exemplar deed [Exbt.1].
Having considered the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the sale-deeds portray different rates in the different point of time and in the different areas. But there cannot be any doubt the sale-deed No.1-2846 is proximate to the date of acquisition and its genuinity has not been challenged. However, the appellant has stated that the rate of smaller piece of land should not be compared with the rate of comparatively by larger piece of land. No doubt, the said objection is structured on the sound logic which cannot be casually thrown out. True it is that, a small piece of land may bring the highest rate considering its location and proximity to the business hub etc. Generally, the referring-claimant has stated that the acquired land had potential for fetching higher value. In the area where the land value is situates the quite substantially. Thus the sale-deed No.1-2846 [Exbt.1] is a pointer to the mobility of the rate, but on consideration of the quantity of the land as reflected in the said sale-deed [Exbt.1]. It appears the deduction was essential. Even though the LA Judge did not state or reflect that there had been any deduction, but from the rate analysis it surfaces that for determining the rate in the reference case being Civil Misc. LA 72 of 2011, 50% deduction has been made from the rate reflected in the exemplar deed. So far the reference case being Civil Misc. LA 78 of 2011 is concerned, the deduction as made is about 35% (a little less than 35% to be precise), has been deducted considering its belonging to better classification. Thus, the land value has been arrived at Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. Having verified the rate of the deduction, simply on the basis of the quantity of the land, this court is not persuaded for further deduction by way of slashing the land value, but at the same time, the plea raised by Mr. Datta, learned counsel as regards applying the sale-deed which fetched the highest railway is not tenable and hence already the said analogy is discarded.
Having observed thus, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and hence, the appeals are dismissed.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.