Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 966 (GAU)

Bina Rani Deb v. Land Acquisition Collector

2006-11-03

A.B.PAL

body2006
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'L.A. Act') dated 5.11.2000 certain lands were acquired for the public purpose of construction of new railway line from Agartala to Kumarghat and the Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector) of the North Tripura District by order dated 4.1.2001 assessed the market value of the said lands situated at Mouja Ambassa in the North Tripura District awarding (i) Rs. 72,000/-per acre for Bastu, (ii) Rs. 54,000/- per acre for Nal/Lunga/Chara/Pukur/Doba, (iii) Rs. 48,000/- per acre for Bhiti, (iv) Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Tilla and (v) Rs. 14,400/-per acre for Layakpatit/Chara/Path The appellant herein had her land within the said acquired lands which were bastu and tilla, for which she received compensation at the rate of Rs. 72,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per acre respectively. She also received Rs. 748/- for removal of her hut and Rs. 48,563/- for damage of her trees standing on the acquired lands. At her instance, a reference was made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act where she put forward a claim of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per kani for her lands acquired and Rs. 1,60,000/- for damage of her trees. The learned L.A. Judge in Civil Misc. (LA) 16/ 2002, delivered judgment on 2.3.2005 awarding Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for bastu and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for tilla land, placing sole reliance on a judgment of his predecessor in Civil Misc. (LA) 18/2002 delivered on 25.7.2003 in respect of certain other lands acquired by the same notification and for the same purpose as aforementioned. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Choudhuri, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. Mr. Choudhuri placed an argument that the judgment impugned has been rendered by the learned L.A. Judge without considering the prevailing market value on the basis of Mouja-wise valuation of the said area declared by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ambassa, Dhalai District on 25.1.2000. According to the appellant, the market value of the acquired lands was Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. In support of his claim, he has produced one letter of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambassa Dhalai District issued in favour of one Badal Chandra Das showing Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani as the valuation of the land of Badal Chandra Das. According to the appellant, the market value of the acquired lands was Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. In support of his claim, he has produced one letter of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambassa Dhalai District issued in favour of one Badal Chandra Das showing Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani as the valuation of the land of Badal Chandra Das. On perusal of the same, it would appear that the lands measuring 0.14 acres of Mouja Ambassa was Dokan (shop) - Tilla. It cannot be said, solely on the basis of the said document, that all the lands of Ambassa Mouja must necessarily carry the same valuation. 4. The order dated 4.1.2001 of the learned L.A. Collector making the assessment would go to show that he had taken into consideration the valuation chart issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambassa, according to which the valuation varies from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per acres. Upon perusal of the transfer deeds furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Ambassa vide letter dated 18.11.2000, the learned Collector found that at the relevant period the value of land in Ambassa Mouja varies from Rs. 92,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani. Considering all aspects, the said Collector awarded flat rate of Rs. 70,000/- per kani for bastu and Rs. 30,000/- per kani for tilla lands. One of the claimants, Shri Gopal Ch. Sharma had his claim for enhanced compensation examined by the learned L.A. Judge on a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was decided in Civil Misc. (LA) 18/2002. In the judgment delivered on 25.7.2003 the said L.A. Judge enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for bastu lands and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for tilla lands. The other enhanced rates awarded in the said judgment need not be mentioned here as in the present appeal, the lands acquired are bastu and tilla lands only. There is nothing on record to show that the said enhanced rate was further challenged in any higher forum and, therefore, placing reliance on the said rates, the learned L.A. Judge in the present judgment under challenge followed the said rate and awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for bastu lands and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for tilla lands keeping in mind that for all such lands acquired by the said notification, the learned L.A. Collector awarded flat rate. 5. 1,25,000/- per acre for bastu lands and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for tilla lands keeping in mind that for all such lands acquired by the said notification, the learned L.A. Collector awarded flat rate. 5. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned L.A. Collector did not take into consideration the Mouja-wise valuation of the lands declared by the Revenue authority and as the same flat rate was awarded by the L.A. Collector which was enhanced by the learned L.A. Judge noticed above, there is no reason for further enhancement of the valuation of the lands of the appellant, particularly when the earlier judgment has received finality. For the discussions and reasons aforementioned, this appeal has no merit and consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.