AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. R Pukayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment dated 21.07.2016 delivered in Misc. LA (Ref) 291 of 2014 by the LA Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.
Brief facts which are considered essential for determination of the appeal may be introduced at the outset. By the Notification under No. F.9(16)-REV/ACQ/XII/2010 dated 15.04.2010 under Section 17 of the LA Act, the land pertaining to Khatian No.2681, Plot No.2110/7264 under Mouja Belonia, South Tripura measuring 0.040 acre of the appellant was acquired for purpose of improvement of road under Belonia Nagar Panchayat from Akhanda Mandali to Giridhari Ashram. Having inquired in respect of the claim and the market value, under Section 11 of the LA Act, the compensation for the acquired land was determined by the LA Collector, South Tripura. The land value was ascertained at Rs.19,00,000/- per kani for purpose of quantifying the compensation. Being aggrieved, the appellant pressed for the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference being Misc. LA (Ref) 291/2014 has been answered by the judgment and award dated 21.07.2016. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
Ms. R Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that by the impugned judgment, the LA Judge has enhanced the land value from Rs.19,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- which is the rate as reflected in the land chart prepared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the category of land as acquired and the said rate-chart is available in the Paper Book. It is apparent that the land of the appellant, which has been acquired, falls within Nal class of land and under the rate chart for the said plot Rs.25,00,000/-has been determined for purpose of registration, etc.
In this regard, there is no controversy between the parties. In the rate chart as prepared and authenticated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, against the plot No.2221 the rate has been provided at Rs.25,00,000/-.
Ms. R Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is common knowledge that the said rate chart is the bare minimum valuation of the land. Moreover, the land is situated within the highly developed urban area and acquired for improvement of the road running from Akhanda Mandali to Giridhari Ashram. According to Ms. Purkayastha, the land value should be enhanced to Rs.80,00,000/- per kani considering all the advantages, as attached to the land as acquired. It goes without saying that the land is situated along the said road, which is one of the busy roads of the urban area. Therefore, the land, even though it falls in the Nal category of land, is a commercial land. But that aspect has not been considered by the LA Judge while passing the judgment dated 21.07.2016.
Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has furthersubmitted that even the sale transactions, as relied by the appellant, before the LA Judge have not been properly appreciated. The five sale deeds being 1-198, 1-802, 1-1208, 1-801, 1-15 [part of Exhibit-1 series] were brought in the record.
The rates, as reflected in those sale transactions, may be noted for purpose of further reference. In the sale deed No.1-198 executed on 1/2/2008, the land value for a piece of land measuring 1kara, 1kranta and 10 dhur was Rs.94,000/- per kani. The transaction value for the sale deed No.1-198 dated 01.02.2008 (part of Exhibit-1) was Rs.75,00,000/- per kani. So far the sale deed No.1-802 dated 13.04.2007 is concerned, it shows the transaction value of Rs.81,00,000/- per kani. So far the sale deed No.1-1208 dated 26.09.1996 is concerned, it shows the transaction value of Rs.9,60,00,000/- and in the sale deed No.1-801 dated 30.05.2008 the transaction value was Rs.3,00,00,000/- per kani. But the location of the land has not been established by the referring claimant. That apart, the transaction took place for a very small measure of land. This cannot provide the standard rate for purpose of determining compensation.
Moreover, the referring claimant, PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has however stated that those lands are nearby his acquired land. This does not substantiate the location of land. No other materials have been placed by the referring claimant. The Land Acquisition Collector while assessing the land rate, had considered seven deeds, brief details of those are tabulated below:
Sl. No
Sale deed
Date of registration
Plot No
Class
Area in Acres
Rate per kani
1
1-1553
23.11.09
3111/P
Bastu
0.060
Rs.20,00,000/-
2
1-1573
27.11.09
1091/9174
Dokan
0.014
Rs.90,00,000/
3
1-1335
07.10.09
4191/9205
Bastu
0.060
Rs.15,00,000/
4
1-1397
24.10.09
1681,1662
Bastu
0.053
Rs.28,83,019/-
5
1-1657
15.12.09
3848,3884
Viti
0.031
Rs.11,61,290/-
6
1-1420
30.10.09
2041
Nal
0.060
Rs. 15,00,000/-
7
1-1680
18.12.09
4526
Viti
0.099
Rs. 18,08,881/-
Only one deed did belong to Nal class of land and the transactional rate was Rs.15,00,000/- per kani whereas another land which falls in the category of Dokan viti had brought Rs.90,00,000/-. Thus, there is a huge swing on the basis of the class of land. The appellant's land falls within Nal class of land. But it appears that the LA Judge has not taken into consideration the rate of acceleration in the urban areas. The apex court has held that in the premium urban area the rate of acceleration may be 7%-8% whereas in the adjoining rural areas that may be 5%-7%.
We have considered the location, as can be gathered on the basis of some guess work. Notwithstanding the objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel that Rs.25,00,000/-is the fair and appropriate rate for purpose of determining the compensation, this court is of the view that the land rate should be enhanced to Rs.35,00,000/- per kani for purpose of determining the compensation.
As there is no material in the hand of the court in respect of acceleration of rate. As stated, the court has noticed that the rate of acceleration while determining the land value has not been considered and the locational advantages have not been enquired into, neither by the Land Acquisition Collector nor by the Land Acquisition Judge. Thus, the said rate, having considered those factors, would be the fair rate for purpose of determining the compensation.
It goes without saying that Rs.35,00,000/- per kani would be the basis for determining the compensation in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, meaning that with the value of the land, solatium @ 30% [under Section 23 (2) of the LA Act] and additional compensation @ 12%. [under Section 23(1) of the LA Act] be added.
Further, it is clearly stated that the calculated amount of compensation shall fetch the interest in terms of and at the rate of Section 34 of the LA Act. The compensation which will be derived out of this rate shall be paid within a period of 4(four) months from the date when the appellant shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order.
Accordingly, this appeal is stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.