AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent, the land-loser.
By means of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the judgment and award dated 11.07.2013 delivered in Misc (LA) 09 of 2010 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur has been questioned. There is no dispute that for purpose of construction of RCC Bridge over Pitracherra and the approach road to Killa under Mouja- Killa, Sub Division-Udaipur, a piece of land measuring 0.225 acres [nal and baluchar] was acquired from the sole-respondent. Rs. 40,750/- was awarded as the compensation for the land, for removal of huts and other incidental charges etc. Rs. 5,349/- and for damage of trees Rs. 8,860/-, with usual components of the compensation as provided under Section 23 of the L.A. Act. The compensation was thus assessed at Rs.68,222/- by the Land Acquisition Collector.
By aggrieved by the said determination, the sole- respondent pressed for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said reference being Misc (LA) 09 of 2010 has been determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur by the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2013. By the impugned judgment and award, the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur has enhanced the rate in the following manner:
"For nal class of land the rate is determined as Rs.1,80,000/- per kani instead of Rs.70,000/- per kani. For land in the class of baluchar, the said rate was Rs.1,50,000/- per kani in lieu of Rs.40,000/- per kani. After the assessment the damages for trees was also enhanced to Rs. 44,000/- in total instead of Rs. 8,860/-. On account of damages for dwelling huts, Rs. 25,000/- was granted by the Land Acquisition Judge and another sum of Rs.13,886/- has been awarded for damages for 3 kitchens instead of Rs.1,134/-".
The said judgment is under challenge by the appellants.
Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the proper procedure for determining the value of the land has not been adopted and hence the assessment cannot ascribed to be fair. Mostly on the basis of assumption the said rate has been determined.
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the appellants have already complied with the judgment dated 02.05.2013 delivered in Misc (LA) 14 of 2010 which arose from the same acquisition covered by the same notification issued by the Revenue Department under No. F.9(3)-REV/ACQ/ XI / 2007, dated 25.07.2007 under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The land as acquired for purpose of construction of the RCC bridge is situated in close proximity. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has categorically submitted that the judgment and award dated 02.05.2013 as delivered in Misc (LA) 14 of 2010 [Sri Madhabi Marak & another vs. L.A. Collector & another] has been complied by the appellants by payment of compensation as determined by the LA Judge. In the said judgment, a certified copy of which has been submitted by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, it is found that the Land Acquisition Judge has given the award in the mode as under:
"9. From the careful scrutiny of the assessment note and the valuation chart, it is found that inadequate value of the land was awarded by the L.A. Collector. The claim of the petitioner was that value of the land would be Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. The land was acquired in the year 2007 vide notification dated 24.08.2007 and the transaction was also made in the year 2007 as per the assessment note. But as per the deed produced by the petitioner vide deed no. 1-2402 it appears that in the same vicinity, the value of the land is much higher than that of the value assessed by the L.A. Collector. Therefore, considering the potentiality of the acquired land, development project and also considering the fact that value of land is rising day by day, value of the acquired land is determined @Rs.1,80,000/- lakh per kani, instead of Rs.70,000/- as given by the LA Collector and that will be the correct quantum of compensation.
It appears from the LA Special Form No. 11 that for the trees only Rs.2,000/- was paid. How, the assessment was done not clarified. According to the petitioner, in the acquired land there was 20 betel nut trees. Therefore, considering the fact that in future petitioners would earn something from the trees, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant petitioner. Rs. 2,000/- already given by the L.A. Collector for the damages of those trees. So, the petitioners will get the rest amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- - Rs.2,000/- = Rs.13,000/- in addition for the damage of trees only.
Further, it appears that for removal cost of hutsments only Rs.8,063/- was paid. From the L.A. Special Form no. 10 it appears that one hotel made of tin fencing with tin roof and one dwelling huts made of bamboo fencing with tin roof were damaged for acquiring the land by the acquiring authority. So, for the damage of one hotel made of tin fencing with tin roof Rs.40,000/- and one dwelling hut made of bamboo fencing with tin roof Rs.25,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant petitioner. In total, petitioner is entitled to Rs.65,000/-. Since Rs.8,063/- is already given, the petitioner is entitled to get the rest amount i.e. Rs.56,937/- for the damage of one hotel and one dwelling hut.
Petitioner is also entitled to et interest over the enhanced amount @% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 07.08.2010 till the date of payment.
Thus, issue No. 2 & 3 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the claim of compensation will be Rs.1,80,000/- per kani instead of Rs.70,000/- as given by the L.A Collector considering the potentiality of the acquired land, development project and also considering the fact that value of land is rising day by day. The value of damaged trees will be Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as paid and the value of the damaged hotel and dwelling hut will be Rs.65,000/- instead of Rs.8,063/- as paid. Petitioner is entitled to get solatium over the enhanced amount 30% for land only. Petitioner is also entitled to get 12% yearly enhancement over the enhanced amount from the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, till the date of payment or taking over the possession, whichever is earlier. The award amount will also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. 07.08.2010, till the date of payment. Petitioner is not entitled to get any other relief, as claimed".
[Emphasis added]
According to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, the same rate was awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge in respect of the land related to the judgment and award dated 02.05.2013. So, far the other damages are concerned, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents has not raised serious objection and in view of this, this court is of the view that when the appellant has already paid the same rate in respect of the land covered under the same notification and under the same project and having situated in the close proximity, there cannot be any embargo in accepting the said rate in respect of the land of the sole-respondent in view of the provisions of Section 28A of the L.A. Act which provides that when the court allows any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the person interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub- section 1 and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may notwithstanding that they had not made an application for reference to the Collector under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, on written application to the Collector, within 3(three) months from the date of such award of the court may require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re- determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court. Even if, there was no reference from the present respondent, the said principle as engrafted in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act may be taken as tool for deciding this appeal. Thus, this appeal does not merit further scrutiny.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the award/decree accordingly.
LCRs be sent back thereafter.