Tapan Pal @ Tapan Kr. Paul vs Chief Engineer And Ors

Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This is an appeal under Section 54 of the L. A. Act by the referring claimant from the judgment dated 27.07.2018 delivered in (Misc.) L. A. No.142 of 2014 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala.

Basic facts, considered relevant for purpose of determination of this appeal, are that for construction and upgradation of the link road from NH-44 (Amtali PS to Dr. BRAM Hospital, Hapania), a piece of land measuring 0.016 acre classified as bastu (tilla) under mouja Madhupur sheet No.5/P recorded in khatian No.1945 comprising in plots No. 9417/10962/p and 4630/9418 was acquired pursuant to the notification No.F.9(4)-REV/ACQ/XIV/07 dated 28.04.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

From the assessment sheet, it appears that the L. A. Collector taking the following sale transactions, which are provided in a tabular form below, had decided to give Rs.6,00,000/- per kani for the viti (tilla) class of land and accordingly the compensation in terms of Section 23 of the L. A. Act was assessed.

Sl. No.

Mouja

Plot No.

Class of land

Area in acre

Deed No. & date

Total value of land

Value of land per kani

Distance from the land proposed to be acquired

1.

Madhuban sheet No.5

4851

Bhiti

0.04

1-545 dt. 13.01.06

Rs.50,000/-

Rs.5,00,000/-

920 feet

2.

-do-

4687/ 9512

Bastu (Tilla)

0.04

1-823 dt. 28.08.06

Rs.1,00,000/-

Rs.10,00,000/-

340 feet

3.

-do-

4775

Bastu (Tilla)

0.02

1-815 dt. 26.08.06

Rs.55,000/-

Rs.11,00,000/-

1335 feet

4.

-do-

4629

Bastu (Tilla)

0.06

1-3639 dt. 26.03.04

Rs.30,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/-

25 feet

5.

-do-

4850 4851

Bhiti

0.048

1-548 dt. 14.02.07

Rs.1,59,500/-

Rs.13,29,166/-

910 feet

The petitioner being aggrieved by such assessment made under Section 11 of the L. A. Act pressed for reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act for determination of the appropriate market value of the acquired land. The said reference being Misc. (L.A.) No.142 of 2014 has been answered by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2018.

Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that the land acquired from the adjoining area had fallen for consideration by this court in L.A. App. No.08 of 2013 (Tushar Bindu Chakraborty vs. The Executive Engineer and Ors.) where this court by the judgment dated 27.04.2016 has provided the land rate at Rs.31,50,000/- per kani. The said rate has been pressed by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the acquired land of the appellant.

Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has in defence of the judgment as challenged in this appeal has submitted that there is no infirmity in assessment. On the contrary, a liberal index has been used for determining the value.

Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset it would be appropriate to reproduce a passage from the judgment dated 27.07.2018 delivered by the L.A. Judge.

"In the present case the L.A. Collector has granted compensation @ Rs.15 lac per acre and only Rs.24,000/-has been paid by the L.A. Collector to the referring claimant towards the value of the land measuring0.016 acres that means the L.A. Collector has acquired more than three Karas land out of total three and half gandas land purchased by the referring claimant by means of Ext.2 in the year 2002 and the L.A. Collector has acquired the portion of the land upon which the referring claimant had constructed a shop premises and as per oral evidence of the referring claimant that shop was his only source of earning.

The Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura by the judgment and order (oral) dated 27.04.2016 delivered in L.A. Appeal No.8 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal No.9 of 2013 has been pleased to enhance the amount of compensation @ Rs.21 lac per kani for „Dokan viti‟ class of land which was purchased in the year 1996 with additional increase of 5% per year till the date of acquisition of the land but the Hon‟ble High Court fixed the value of the acquired land @ Rs.21 lac since the land in question was purchased by the referring claimant in the year 1996 @ Rs.21 lac per kani. But in the present case the referring claimant Sri Tapan Kr. Pal have purchased the acquired land in the year 2002 @ Rs.1,42,857 per kani. However, the referring claimant subsequently constructed a shop premises on the acquired land and as such the referring claimant is entitled to get compensation as enhanced by the Hon‟ble High Court in L.A. Appeal No.8 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal No.9 of 2013. However, considering all factors including the increasing trend of land rate in the State of Tripura, I am of the considered view that the claim of the referring claimant will be justified if the rate of compensation for the acquired land is enhanced from Rs.6,00,000/- per kani to Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. On the other hand, I do not like to interfere with the other amounts which were awarded by the L.A. Collector towards statutory interest and other consequential relief."

Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that 5% increase as given for the upward mobility of the land rate was not added while valuing the land of the appellant. There cannot be any amount of confusion that the L.A. Judge has added the increase for the upward mobility in the land rate quite leniently and as such the rate has been taken from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- whereas the appellant had purchased the same land @ Rs.1,42,857/-.

Hence, this court does not find any infirmity in the judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.