Sujoy Chowdhury And Ors. vs Deputy Commandant And Ors.

Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Assistant SG for the respondent-Union of India as well as Mr. SD Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent-LA Collector.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court no.3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc.(LA) 208 of 2012.

By way of issuing notification no. F.9(37)/Rev/Acq/VI/2004, dated 10.01.2004 under Section 4 of the LA Act and, subsequent declaration dated 27.02.2004 under Section 6 of the LA Act, the land in question belonging to the appellants was acquired. The LA Collector while assessing the market price of the land had classified the entire land of acquisition under 3 blocks- Block 'A', Block 'B' and Block 'C'.

The land in question in this appeal falls under Block 'C' which is situated on the backside of Block 'A' and Block 'B'. Considering the nature and position of the land, the LA Collector had awarded compensation in favour of the appellants considering the market price of the acquired land ranging from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per kani.

Being aggrieved by such determination of compensation, the appellants sought for reference. Under reference, the learned LA Judge accepted the claim statement as well as the counter statement filed by the appellants and the respondents. At the time of trial, issues were framed. Evidences were let in by all the parties to the proceeding and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned LA Judge had determined the market price of the whole area of land in the manner as follows:

For lunga class of land:

Rs. 70,000/- per kani;

For chara (tilla), tilla, duba(lunga) and cha-bagan (tilla):

Rs. 40,000/- per kani

For rastha class of land:

Rs. 25,000/- per kani

The acquired land in question in this appeal falls within the lunga class of land and accrued the value of Rs. 70,000/- per kani and, thus, such valuation of land was enhanced from Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellants, being the owners of the tea- garden, have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the learned LA Judge ought to have considered the value of the land in conformity with the value of the land mentioned in the exemplar deed (Exhibit-1) since the questioned land is in close proximity of the said land. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that there are so many important establishments of the Central government as well as of the State government which includes even the University like ICFAI near to the acquired land, as such, the valuation of the land should be at the higher side. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 also has extended his support to the said submission of the appellant being the private respondents, who are the owners of the adjacent land.

Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has defended the valuation as assessed by the LA Collector. Mr. Majumder, learned Assistant SG has also defended the judgment of the learned LA Judge determining the market price of the acquired land.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid submission, I have gone through the evidences on record. I find that the appellants no where have stated that their land is situated in close proximity with the exemplar deeds (Exhibit- 1). The learned LA Judge has considered that though the acquired land is not situated in close proximity of the acquired land, but, there are some important establishments near to the acquired land. As such, the learned LA Judge has enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- , Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- per kani considering the class of land i.e. lunga, chara, rasta respectively.

There is no dispute that the acquired land is situated at a distance of just 10 kms. away from Agartala. The learned counsel for the appellants has claimed the market price of the land to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- per kani. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.

So far the evidences as surfaced in this case is concerned, it is found that the entire area of land consists of three classes of land i.e. lunga, chara and "rasta" (pathway). The land was acquired for construction of CRPF Group Centre. Considering the nature of the land, in my opinion, the State- respondents and the requiring department has to incur huge cost and expenses for its development to ensure the construction work.

Having considered all aspects, in my opinion, the exemplar deed (Exhibit-1) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants must not be taken into consideration for determination of compensation. However, it is true that certain important establishments are situated close to the acquired land. Considering the importance and potentiality of the land and the development cost to be incurred by the government, the valuation of the land may be assessed at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per kani for lunga class of land, Rs. 50,000/- per kani for chara class of land and Rs. 35,000/- per kani for "rasta" (pathway) class of land.

Accordingly, this court has determined the valuation of the land at the rate as stated here-in-above and the appellants are entitled to get the compensation for acquisition of the acquired land at the rates, mentioned here-in-above.

Resultantly, the judgment and award dated 09.12.2016 passed in Misc(LA) 208 of 2012 by the learned L.A. Judge is hereby modified in the above terms. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and thus disposed of. The LA Collector shall quantify and pay the compensation to the appellants at the rate as determined as mentioned in this judgment.

Send down the LCRs.