Officer Commanding vs Subrata Paul And Ors.

Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant; Mr. S.S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. D.C.Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

By this appeal, the requiring department namely the Officer Commanding, 112 RCC(GREF) has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.08.2010 delivered in Civil Misc.(LA) 4 of 2009 by the Land Acquisition judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar as he then was. At the outset, Mr. Majumder has fairly submitted that this appeal is covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2015 delivered in a batch of appeals being L.A. Appeal No. 37 of 2011 [the Officer Commanding, 112 RCC, GREF Vrs. Smt. Punnyapati Chakma & Ors.] etc. The said judgment is also related to the construction of National Highway 44-A from Manu to Simlowng and had emanated from the same notifications [under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894]

Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted that except in Mouja Mainama, no deduction has been permitted for any land comprised in Mouja Manu. Since the acquired land under reference in this appeal is comprised in Mouja Manu, this appeal is bound to fall through and accordingly, the same may be dismissed.

Mr. S.S. Debnath, learned counsel for the referring claimants has supported the said contention of Mr. Majumder, learned CGC for the appellant.

In Paras 10 and 14 of the said referred judgment, it has been observed as under:

"[10] While determining the land value of Mouja-Manu, not only the judgment in Civil Misc.(LA) 05 of 2009 and Civil Misc.(LA) 14 of 2009 have been taken care of in view of the principles laid down in Section 28-A the Land Acquisition Act, but a series of documents such as, sale deeds at Exbt.1 series introduced by the referring claimants which demonstrated land value even at Rs.80,00,000/- per kani from the contemporaneous sale instance have been duly considered by the Land Acquisition Judge. Having due regard to the land valuation chart (Exbt.A series) as well the Land Acquisition Judge determined the land value of the acquired land from Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- against the claim from Rs.90,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. The land as acquired under Mouja-Manu are mostly viti class of land and their location has persuaded the Land Acquisition Judge to vary the rate as he has considered that the land in the business hub of Manughat would not bring the same amount of value to the land situated in its periphery. But the appellants did not introduce any sale instance save and except the land valuation chart. Thus, the reasoning and the analysis as provide by the Land Acquisition Judge so far the land acquired for Mouja-Manu do not require any interference.

............. ............

............. ............

[14] Having held thus, this Court is of the view that so far the land value as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned judgments is not generally required to be interfered with. But so far awarding of the similar value towards all categories of land requires interference. Hence, it is directed that so far the land pertaining to tilla, doba, pukur, pukur par and balu char from Mouja-Mainama is concerned, deduction at 20% from the rate as has been determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, shall be made."

There cannot be any amount of doubt that this appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment dated 28.07.2015 and in the result, this appeal stands dismissed.

Draw the award/decree accordingly.

Transmit the LCRs thereafter.