In-Charge, HR-ER, ONGC Limited vs Rani Bala Debnath And Ors.

[1] It appears that, even though the respondents No. 1 to 6 have received the notice, none has appeared for ensuring their representation in this appeal. Heard, Mr. R. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the L.A. Act challenging the legality of the judgment and award dated 10.08.2016 delivered in Misc (L.A) No. 90 of 2010 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala.

[3] By the said judgment, the land value has been increased to Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani for purpose of drawing the compensation with other statutory components for the acquired land appertaining to Khatians No. 4219/1 and 4219/2, Plots No. 6203 (Nal), 6196 (Chara/Nal) and 6205/P (Nal) measuring 0.78 acres. The said land was acquired for the public service, namely, ONGC Drilling site or Pit at location KUAC.

[4] The acquisition process commenced by the Notification under No. F.9(10)-REV/ACQ/VI/2005 dated 14.12.2005 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was made under the even No. dated 21.01.2006. Thereafter, on carrying out the inquiry under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, 1894, the value of the land was decided by the L.A. Collector at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for the nal class of land.

[5] The land-loser respondents had being dissatisfied urged for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly, the reference was made. By the impugned judgment and award dated 10.08.2016, the said reference has been answered by enhancing the value of the land from Rs. 2,50,000/- to 15,00000/- per kani for purpose of determining the compensation.

[6] Mr. R. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the land loser respondents have utterly failed to prove that they were entitled to the increase rate for the said land.

[7] In Mahrawal Khewaji Trust (registered) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, (2012) 5 SCC 432, in para-15 of the said judgment, it has been observed by the Apex Court that if there was no exemplar pursuant to which the L. A. Judge could have arrived at the market value, that the rate is unsustainable.

[8] Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that in absence of any exemplar, the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has submitted on the assessment of the appellant as it appears that at best the land loser respondents may get Rs. 5,00000/- per kani i.e. Rs. 12.5 lakhs per acre.

[9] Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has asserted that for acquisition under the same notification, the L.A. Collector had referred the case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act where the L.A. Collector in the process of determining the compensation of nal class of land had determined the rate at Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani.

[10] It appears that the L.A. Collector as well as the referring claimants brought in the evidence the following sale deeds in support of their respective claims.

For the referring claimants.

Sale deeds No. 1-7105 dated 21.06.2004, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 and 1-10778 dated 23.10.2006. All the sale deeds as referred above here marked as Exhibit-1 series.

For the Land Acquisition Collector

Sale deeds No. 1-6431 dated 25.07.2003, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003, 1-5662 dated 04.07.2003 and 1-8065 dated 09.09.2003 which were marked respectively as Exhibit-A, B, C and D series. Thereafter, the L.A. Judge has made the observation, as reproduced, to enhance the rate from Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for nal class of land to Rs.15,00,000/- per kani.

"It appears that in the instant case the claimant petitioners have submitted three copies of sale deeds vide No. 1-7105 dated 21.06.2004, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 and 1-10778 dated 23.10.2006 which are marked as Exhibit-1 series. On the other hands the O.P. No. 2 has produced four sale deeds vide No. 1-6431 dated 25.07.2003, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003, 1-5662 dated 04.07.2003 and 1-8065 dated 09.09.2003 which are marked as Exhibit-A, B, C and D series to substantiate their respective claims. Out of these three sale deeds produced by the referring claimants, sale deed vide No. 1- 8511 dated 21.06.2004 was also considered by the L.A. Collector for assessment of compensation. But the L.A. Collector did not accept the sale deed No. 1-8511 dated 21.06.2004 because it pertains to a small piece of land which attract more buyers and fetch more price than large track of land so this cannot represent the real average prevailing market value of Bastu class of land.

But on perusal of the claim statement of the referring claimants and the counter statement of O.P. No. 2, that the acquired land has already been developed and could be used as commercial or residential plot. Therefore, the price of the land should be assessed on the higher side not on the lower side. Because the O.P. No. 2 has already stated in their counter statement that the acquired land is situated at Indranagar Village which is adjoining to Agartala Town and urbanization is progressing very rapidly as such, the classification of land do not create any impact on the price of land. As a result there is strong demand for land suitable for construction of houses site. It appears that in the instant case the notification was made on 14.12.2005. The deed No. 1-10778 was executed on 23.10.2006 i.e. after the date of notification.

So this deed cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of award. It also appears that the sale deeds which are produced by both sides for consideration of quantum of award, the consideration value of the land of deed No. 1-7105 dated 21.06.2004 is on the higher side i.e. @ 20,00,000/- per kani. The classification of that land is Bastu class. The acquired land is nal class of land. It also appears that the potential value of viti and bastu are almost similar. However, considering the various aspects it is assumed that the value of nal and in no way be less than half of the value of viti bastu class of land. Moreover, the value of the sale deeds which are produced by both the parties with reference to similar lands in comparison with the acquired land is @ Rs. 30,00,000/- per kani is in the higher side.

In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahrawal KhewajiTrust (registered) Fridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, in para-15 of the decision the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"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."

Therefore, considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it appears that the referring claimants is entitled to get the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani i.e. the 4/2 (half) of the highest value @ Rs. 30,00,000/- per kani with reference to similar land in the locality.

In view of above, I am constrained to hold that the referring claimant in the present case is also entitled to get compensation 50% Rs. 30,00,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani for the proper value of the acquired land considering the classification of the acquired land is nal land along with other statutory benefits."

[11] Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that this case is covered by the judgment and order dated 28.07.2016 delivered in series of L.A. Appeals being L.A. Appl. No. 51 of 2013, L.A. Appl. No. 52 of 2013 and L.A. Appl. No. 53 of 2013. This Court has scrutinized the comparability of the location, advantage etc., with the land as relevant for the present appeal and the land in those appeals which were disposed of by the judgment and order dated 28.07.2016.

[12] It appears that in the instant case, the claimant petitioners have submitted three copies of sale deeds vide No. 1-7105 dated 21.06.2004, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 and 1-10778 dated 23.10.2006 which are marked as Exhibit-1 series. On the other hand the O.P. No. 2 has produced four sale deeds vide No. 1-6431 dated 25.07.2003, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003, 1-5662 dated 04.07.2003 and 1-8065 dated 09.09.2003 which are marked as Exhibit-A, B, C and D to substantiate their respective claims. Out of these three sale deeds produced by the referring claimants, sale deed vide No. 1-8511 dated 21.06.2004 was also considered by the L.A. Collector for assessment of compensation. But the L.A. Collector did not accept the sale deed No. 1-8511 dated 21.06.2004 because it pertains to a small piece of land which attract more buyers and fetch more price than large track of land so that, according to the L.A. Collector, cannot represent the real average prevailing market value of Bastu class of land.

[13] But on perusal of the claim statement of the referring claimants and the counter statement of O.P. No. 2, that the acquired land has already been developed and could be used as commercial or residential plot. Therefore, the price of the land should fetch higher rate. Because the O.P. No. 2 has already stated in their counter statement that the acquired land is situated at Indranagar Village which is adjoining to Agartala Town and urbanization is progressing very rapidly and as such, the classification of land does not hold much importance on the price of land. As a result, there is strong demand for the land, suitable for construction of houses. It appears that in the instant case, the notification was made on 14.12.2005. The deed No. 1- 10778 was executed on 23.10.2006 i.e. after the date of notification.

[14] So that deed cannot be taken straightway into consideration for assessment of the rate. It also appears that the sale deeds which are produced for consideration for determining the quantum of the award, the consideration value of the land related to the deed No. 1-7105 dated 21.06.2004 was at Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani. The classification of that land is Bastu class. The acquired land is nal class of land. It also appears that the potential value of viti and bastu are almost similar. However, considering the various aspects it is assumed that the value of nal in no way be less than half of the value of viti bastu class of land. Moreover, the value as recorded in the sale deeds which are produced by both the parties having reference to the similar category of lands comparable with the acquired land, is Rs. 30,00,000/- per kani.

[15] In the decision of the Apex Court in Mahrawal KhewajiTrust (registered) Fridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, it has been observed as under:

"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."

It has been thus held that, on considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the referring claimants are entitled to get the value of the acquired land at Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani having due regard to the rate of the land situated at the close proximity, but in the different class.

[16] On comparison it appears that the L.A. Judge has virtually followed the judgment dated 30.07.2015 delivered in Misc L.A. 83 of 2010 [Sri Pallab Debnath and Another v. In-Charge HR-ER, ONGC Ltd., & Another] as the land falls in the same class. Even the referring claimants and the L.A. Collector relied on the same set of documents in both the cases. On further comparison, it appears that the sale deeds which were relied on in the case of that series of appeals are same and the land is under the same notification of acquisition. Even the class of the land is same i.e. nal.

[17] Thus, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is correct when he contended that the Principles of Section 28A of the L.A. Act, 1894, the uniform rate should have been awarded. Thus, the land value is reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani for the nal class of land in terms of the judgment dated 28.07.2017 [In-charge, HR-ER, ONGC Ltd vs. Smti. Rani Bala Debnath and Others]. On the basis of the said rate, the compensation shall be drawn giving all the components under Section 23(1A) and 2 of the Land Acquisition Act.

[18] It is further made clear that the solatium shall carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act meaning from when the land was notified for acquisition. The additional amount of the compensation shall be paid within a period of three months when the appellant received the order.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award/decree accordingly and send down the LCRs thereafter.