AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent, the Land Acquisition Collector.
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act against the judgment and award dated 05.12.2016 delivered in Civil Misc.(L.A.)No.20 of 2012 by the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
There is no dispute that a tract of land measuring 0.41 acre, pertaining to Khatian No.2325, R.S. Plot No.5734/7309 of Mouja Churaibari was acquired from the appellant for construction and up-gradation of the Churaibari check post under Dharmanagar Sub-Division. The notification under No.F.9(2)-REV/ACQ/1/2009 dated 14.10.2009 for such acquisition under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued by giving the description of the land. When there was no serious objection, the declaration in terms of Section 6 of the L.A. Act was notified on 04.12.2009. Thereafter, having afforded opportunities of hearing on the claim of compensation, the L.A. Collector determined the compensation based on the value of land at Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. The L.A. Collector considered five sale deeds within the belt of the acquired land which are shown below in a tabular form :
Sl. No.
Plot No.
Class of land
Area
Value (Rs.)
Rate Per Kani(Rs.)
Sale Deed No. & Date
Distance from acquired land
1.
5578
Lunga
0.05
37,000/-
2,96,000/-
1-207 25.01.07
126 Mtr.
2.
5733/p
Lunga
0.26
1,30,000/-
2,00,000/-
1-99 10.01.07
72 Mtr.
3.
5733/p
Lunga
0.02
50,000/-
10,00,000/-
1-109 10.01.07
75 Mtr.
4.
5575p
5573p
Bastu
0.07
2,50,000/-
14,28,560/-
1-2337 3.9.07
140 Mtr.
5.
5580
Lunga
1.00
50,00,000/-
20,00,000/-
1-2483 1.10.07
76 Mtr.
It is apparent that the Sale Deed No.1-2483 dated 01.10.2007 which is very close to the acquired land reflects the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per kani in the same category of land i.e. lunga class of land. However, the L.A. Collector has observed in the assessment sheet in support of giving Rs.6,00,000/- per kani as under :
"4. For determining the prevailing market price of "Kharkana" class of land, the various Sale-deeds so executed in an around the acquired land in different classes prior to the date of Notification have been obtained from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmanagar and to be taken into consideration. It is also to mention that the sale deed in respect of Kharkana Class of land have not been found available so executed prior to the date of Notification in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharmanagar.
After scrutiny of Sale deeds as indicated above, it is found that all the Sale deeds had been executed prior to the date of Notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act and the quantum of land as found involved and situated in respective mouja of the acquired plots. If we go through the Sale deed No.1-2337 dated 3.9.07 had been executed in respect of "Bastu" class of land and thus has not been taken into consideration for determining the prevailing market price of "Kharkana" Class of land. During field verification of acquired land, it has come to light that the acquired land is recorded as "Kharkana" in ROR but physically "Lunga" Class of land. Considering above, the Deeds so executed in respect of "Lunga" Class of land as shown in the Table above are taken into consideration for determining the prevailing market price of acquire land. The Deed No.1-2483 dated 1.10.07 had been executed in respect of
"Lunga" class of land but situated in adjacent of NH-44 road and usually utilized in commercial purpose by the land owner wherein the acquired land is situated far away from NH-44 road and considering above the sale deed has been discarded for consideration. The Deed No.1-207 dated 25.1.07 had been executed involving "Lunga" class of land and situated far away as well as in opposite side of NH 44 road from the acquired land.
The Deed No.1-99 dated 10.1.07 and No.1-109 dated 10.1.07, it is found that both the deeds were executed involving "Lunga" class of land @ Rs.2,00,000/-, and Rs.10,00,000/- per Kani respectively prior to the date of Notification and situated nearby the acquired land as well as in same side of NH 44 road. So both the deeds is taken into consideration for determining prevailing market price of acquired land.
For determination of prevailing market price of acquired land and to keep in mind the value of the above mentioned two deed, I think, the average amount of both the deeds is the actual prevailing market price of acquired land during the time of Notification u/s 4 of L.A. Act.
Considering the above fact for fixing up the rate of acquired land and to keep in mind to the utility of the said class of land in the very area, the prevailing market price of acquired land is fixed as under below :
Kharkana @ Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) Per Kani"
Khatian No.2325 has been examined by this court and it appears that the entire plot of land has been marked as "Factory". On that land, there is no dispute that, the Petrol Pump of the petitioner was operating.
Being aggrieved by the said determination as stated above the land-losers pressed for the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The reference on such prayer was made being Misc.(L.A.)No.20 of 2012. The said reference has been answered by the Land Acquisition Judge by the said judgment and award dated 05.12.2016 having observed that the referring- claimant has demanded that he is entitled to get the land value of Rs.90,00,000/- lakhs per kani for purpose of determining the compensation. But after considering the four deeds [Exbts.4 to 7], the original agreement between Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s Amrita Petroleum Agency owned by the appellant [respectively Exbts.4 to 8], the Land Acquisition Judge has appreciated those deed by taking out the relevant information in the form of table, which is reproduced below :
Sl. No.
Mouja
Plot No.
Class of land
Area in acres
Deed No. & date
Value of the land
Rate per kani
Distan ce from acquir ed land
1.
CRB
5587
Bastu Lunga
.01 sata k
1-2433 dt.21.09 .07
Rs.2,00,00 0/-
Rs.80,00,000 /-
Adjace nt to A.A. road
2.
CRB
5587
Bastu Lunga
.02 sata k
1-2434 dt.21.09 .07
Rs.4,00,00 0/-
Rs.80,00,000 /-
Adjace nt to A.A. road
3.
CRB
5741/6153
Dokan Viti
2.5 kran ta
1-2435 dt.21.09 .07
Rs.1,50,00 0/-
Rs.1,44,00,0 00/-
Adjace nt to A.A. road
4.
CRB
5741/6153
Dokan Viti
2.5 kran ta
1-2436 dt.21.09 .07
Rs.1,50,00 0/-
Rs.1,44,00,0 00/-
Adjace nt to A.A. road
That apart, the appellant examined himself as PW-1 for purpose of introducing those documentary evidence and also for narrating the certain facts. According to him, the acquired land is very close to the deeds as shown by the L.A. Judge in the table at para-9 of the impugned judgment [reproduced above] and accordingly, he has determined the said enhanced rate.
The L.A. Judge has also given due consideration of the assessment sheet and finally he has observed that the land valuation chart cannot be regarded as the guideline for valuation or as the last word on that issue in view of the decision rendered by the apex court in Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha reported in (2004) 2 SCC 9. Thereafter, the L.A. Judge has observed that since the lands which were under the transactions in those sale deeds [Exbts.4 to 7] are in small quantity, those are per se not comparable with the acquired land. The L.A. Judge has also unequivocally observed that the potentiality of the land cannot be ignored, inasmuch as, over that land there existed the referring-claimant's Petrol Pump. The land situated along the National Highway-44. Hence, considering the advantages and the value of the nearby land, the L.A. Judge has determined the land value at Rs.20,00,000/- per kani and Rs.30,000/- for the damage that the referring-claimant has sustained for loss of trees and plants over the said land. No value has been determined for shift of the Petrol Pump, inasmuch as, there is no observation in the entire judgment whether the Petrol Pump was damaged or not.
Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has quite strenuously submitted before this court that the advantageous position of the land is evident from the record. Moreover, the land cannot be treated simply as the lunga class of land. From a bare reading of the khatian of the land, it would be apparent that during field survey over the land there found a factory. Thus, that land was developed. Moreover, the land situated along with the NH-44.
Having regard to those aspects, the position of the land which is acquired and the transactional values as reflected in the deeds [Exbts.4 to 7], this court deems it appropriate to enhance the rate from Rs.80,00,000/- to 90,00,000/- per kani.
To that proposition, Mr. P.Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the L.A. Collector has made a meticulous inquiry in respect of the land as acquired, its class and also the contemporary transactions. The L.A. Collector had considered five sale-deeds relating to the category of lunga and found that the highest exemplar had fetched Rs.20,00,000/- per kani, but he had given the value at Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. But the L.A. Collector, as according to Mr. Gautam, learned counsel enhanced the rate at Rs.20,00,000/- per kani which is the highest rate out of the exemplar deeds which were considered proximate by the L.A. Collector. According to Mr. Gautam, learned counsel there is no infirmity in the judgment and the rate has been determined correctly and hence, no interference is called for.
Having appreciated the rival contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records, this court finds that there is no evidence that the Petrol Pump was damaged at all. No plea has been raised for enhancing the damage on account of trees and plants standing on the land. Hence, the court will not interfere with the said determination in respect of the damage, on the account as stated before, as has been done by the L.A. Judge. However, this court finds some force in the submission of Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that Rs.20,00,000/- which has been determined as the value of the land as highly inadequate considering the position and advantages, and hence increase of value of the land having considered the value of the adjoining lands as recorded in Exbts.4 to 7 is imperative. However, this court is constrained to observe that so far the location of the land as described in Exbts.4 to 7 is concerned, no evidence has been laid by the referring-claimant to show proximity of the acquired land vis-à-vis the land as described in those sale deeds [Exbts.4 to 7]. Mere statement of PW-1 that the land as demised in those deeds are proximate to the acquired land cannot fill the deficiency of the evidence.
Having considered all the aspects, it appears further to the court that the lands demised in Exbts.4 to 7 are within the same Mouja and those are recorded in the same Khatian No.2782 [Exbt.4], Khatian No.2782 [Exbt.5], Khatian No.65/2(part) [Exbt.6], Dag No.4887(part). The acquired land is recorded in Khatian No. 2325. Thus, it is only acceptable that the distance between the land in Khatian Nos.2325 and 2782 cannot be the land in proximity. However, the land as sought to be compared with belongs to the same Mouja.
Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is substantively right when he had contended that a small piece of land cannot be compared with a big tract of land and moreover, some lands are developed as the commercial plots and when those are sold out, and those, fetched the better price which ordinarily, those will not be have garnered.
In the perspective, as noted above, this court is of the view that considering the rate of acceleration in the land rate, even though there is no specific evidence but usual rate may be from .5 to 7.5% p.a. with regard to the position of the land, this court is of the further view that Rs.40,00,000/- per kani would be the fair rate for the acquired land and accordingly, it is ordered. The value of the land is therefore enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/- per kani and accordingly, the compensation shall be calculated following the process as laid under Section 23 of the L.A. Act, meaning, in addition to the value of the land, the solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and additional compensation @ 12 % under Section 23(1)(A) of the L.A. Act be added therewith. After the compensation is computed, the interest as provided under Section 34 of the L.A. Act be provided on all the components. The compensation will thus be calculated or computed be paid within a period of 4(four) months from the day when the appellant shall produce a copy of this order to the respondent.
In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.