AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This civil revision is directed against the order dated 28-3-2016 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Civil Misc. (LA) No. 7 of 2014 rejecting the application for amending the statement of claims filed by the petitioner.
No representation from the respondents despite service of notice. Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard by me at some length. His main contention is that due to the non-availability of registered sale deed of nearby comparable lands, the petitioner has been seriously handicapped in getting adequate compensation for acquiring his land by the acquiring authority. According to the learned counsel, this sorry state of affairs stems from the refusal on the part of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to register any sale deed presented to him by the parties during recent times, which could have been due to the instructions received from the higher authorities. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is with a view to incorporate this serious acts of commission or omission on the part of the Sub-Registrar that the statement of claim of the petitioner is sought to be amended. He, therefore, submits that the proposed amendments are absolutely necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy involved in the reference case. Reliance is placed by him on the following decision to fortify his submissions: Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363; Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmed and ors., (2008) 3 SCC 717; B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and another, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, State of W.B. through its First Land Acquisition Collector v. Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. Kalidas Chakraborty, (1995) 4 SCC 231.
Before proceeding further, it may apposite to reproduce the proposed amendment below:
"The claimants/petitioners have filed some documents which are needed to be marked as exhibits and reserve the right to file further documents as and when called for by this Ld. Court. The Sub- Registrar, Dharmanagar is reluctant to register any sale deed in respect of any landed property more or less than the Govt. approved rate and as such one sale deed serial No. 1843 dated 30-8-2010 has not been registered till today containing the actual market rate which is higher than the Govt. approved rate and as such one sale deed serial No. 1843 dated 30-08-2010 has not been registered till today containing the actual market rate which is higher than the Govt. approved rate. This deed is presently lying with the SDM, Dharmanagar as per instruction of District Registrar, Kailashahar vide his letter dated 10-11-2010 which is needed to be called for by this Ld. Court in c/w the instant case to meet the ends of justice. In the same circumstances, the claimants/petitioners have filed some certified copies of registered sale deeds which could not be registered as per the prevailing market price of land mentioned in the written agreement (Bainapatra) between the parties and as such the original copies of agreement are also submitted along with these registered sale deeds for kind perusal of this Ld. Court to ascertain the fact."
(Italics supplied)
In the first place, the petitioners said something about having filed certified copies of registered sale deeds, but, at the same breath, they also said that they could not be registered as per the prevailing market price mentioned in the agreement. Now, if these sale deeds are already registered as mentioned therein, what is the point in registering them again? Is it their case that they would like to re-register it as per the prevailing market price? This appears to be impermissible in law and this does not make any sense at all. Secondly, which is more important, when there is currently no registered sale deed in their possession to prove the prevailing market price of the adjoining land, how in the world the incorporation of those new facts can in any way enable the Court to determine the market value of the acquired lands, which be assessed on the basis of a registered sale deed; no un-registered sale deed can be taken into account by the Land Acquisition Officer to assess the market value of the acquired land. In my judgment, the fact that the Sub-Registrar declines to register any sale deed cannot in any manner assist the Court in arriving at just compensation of the case. In other words, the proposed amendments cannot be said to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the statement of claim and did not commit any jurisdictional error therefor.
The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this civil revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.