Officer Commanding vs Biswajit Datta And Anr.

[1] Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the appellant. There is no representation from the respondents, despite due notice from this Court.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and award dated 16.08.2010 delivered in Misc. L.A. No. 18 of 2006 by the L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 4.

[3] The appellant is the requiring department. The essential facts in brief are that by publishing the notification under No. F.9 (1)- REV/ACQ/XIV/2004 dated 29.01.2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the notification of the even No. dated 12.03.2004, the land of the respondent No. 1 measuring 0.23 acres of bastu and Viti class situated at Mouja Madhuban under Khatians No. 3278 and 3279 appertaining to C.S. Plots No. 2633/9092 and 2633/9093 was acquired for purpose of construction of by-pass road from Khayerpur to Amtali.

[4] After due inquiry and in exercise of power conferred by Section-11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the L.A. Collector in L.A. Case No. 6/BLG/04 against the said acquisition, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- for the land value @ Rs. 2,00000/- per kani for viti class of land and Rs. 3,00,000/- for Bastu class of land and thus he assessed the total compensation at Rs. 1,58,612/- with other components of the compensation.

[5] Since the land loser was dissatisfied with such determination, he asked for the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Accordingly, the said reference was made and the L.A. Judge answered the said reference by the impugned judgment and award. By the impugned judgment and award the L. A. Judge enhanced the rate for bastu class of land from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,54,000/- per kani and for viti class of land from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani.

[6] Thereafter, the L.A. Judge has directed as under:

"The compensation shall be added with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and 12% under Section (i) (A) of the L.A. Act from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. The interest on the amount of compensation and solatium shall be at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation."

[7] Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the appellant has submitted that the sale instances as relied on by the L.A. Collector was not appreciated by the L.A. Judge. However, he has submitted that the sale instances as relied on by the referring-claimant registered the higher rate. Those rates were considered by the L.A. Judge. For purpose of reference, the relevant particulars from the sale instances are reproduced hereunder:

Sale instances filed on behalf of the referring-claimant

Sl. No.

Description of the documents

Measurement of

land

Value

Rate per Kani

1.

Sale Deed No. 1- 6582 dated 09.06.2006

6 Gandas

Rs. 4,50,000/-

Rs. 15,00,000/-

Sale instance relied by the L.A. Collector

Sl. No.

Description of the documents

Measurement of

land

Value

Rate per Kani

1.

Sale Deed No. 1-2793 dated 14.04.2003

4 Gandas

Rs. 12,000/-

Rs. 60,000/-

[8] The Apex Court has laid down that when two comparable sale deeds are available for consideration the sale deed that carries highest rate shall be considered for purpose of compensating the land- losers, if those are relevant in terms of proximity of location and time of acquisition . It is apparent from the sale deed No. 1-6582 dated 09.06.2006 (Exhibit-1) that the rate in that sale deed was Rs. 15,00,000/- per kani.

[9] From the assessment note as produced from the L.A. Collector, it appears that that deed was not placed for consideration. As a result, on the basis of the sale deed No. 1-2793 dated 14.04.2003 (Exhibit-C) the rate was determined by the L.A. Collector. In the impugned judgment the L.A. Judge has observed as under:

"On perusal of the Assessment Note (Exhibit-A) it reveals that the O.P. O.A. Collector assessed the market price of the Bastu (Tilla) land @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani and Viti (Tilla) land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. The O.P. L. A. Collector fixed the market price of the acquired land basing on the Sale Deed No. 1-1079 dated 19.12.2001 and 1-1089 dated 07.12.2003. During trial, the O.P. L. A. Collector did not produce the said 2 sale deeds to justify the order of assessment."

[10] In view of withholding of the sale deeds by the L.A. Collector, even though it has not been expressly so recorded in the impugned judgment and award, but the L.A. Judge has observed that those sale instances might be not very relevant for purpose of determining the rate.

[11] A substantive deduction has been made from the rate as reflected in the sale deed dated 09.06.2006 (Exhibit-1) and as such, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding based on which, the rate of the acquired land has been determined by the L.A. Judge. Accordingly, no interference is required.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the award/decree accordingly and send down the LCRs thereafter.