Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 149 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Surabala Sarkar

2015-04-10

U.B.SAHA

body2015
ORDER 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19.02.2009 passed in Misc (LA) 05/2008, Misc. (LA) 07/2008, Misc. (LA) 08/2008, Misc. (LA) 11/2008, Misc. (LA) 12/2008, judgment dated 04.03.2009 passed in Misc. L.A. 04/2008, judgment dated 21.03.2009 passed in Misc. (LA) 06/2008, and judgment dated 25.03.2009 passed in Misc. (LA) 09/2008 and Misc. (LA) 10/2008 by the learned LA Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. 2. Heard Mr. J Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the cases. None appears for the respondents as well as the proforma respondent in all the cases. 3. As the impugned judgments in all the appeals are relating to the lands acquired for the same project under the same Notification and learned LA Judge also determined the market value of the acquired land amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs per kani in all the cases, these appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 4. The brief descriptions of the lands involved in the LA Appeals are given below: 4.1 In LA appeal No. 65/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 04/2008, land measuring 0.06 acres of bastu, bagan and lunga class of land relating to plot Nos. 3439/P, 3440/P and 3449/P under Khatian No. 1011 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to Shri Jawaharlal Sharma & 4 others was acquired. 4.2 In LA appeal No. 66/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 05/2008, land measuring 0.09 acres of bastu and lunga class of land relating to plot Nos. 3398/P and 3450/P under Khatian No. 351 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondent, namely, Sri Dilip Chakraborty was acquired. 4.3 In LA appeal No. 67/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 06/2008, land measuring 0.01 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3421/P under Khatian No. 555 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondent Sri Pradip Dey was acquired. 4.4. In LA appeal No. 68/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 07/2008, land measuring 0.02 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3406/P under Khatian No. 46 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondents, namely, Sri Uttam Sharma, Sri Dipak Sharma, Sri Pradip Sharma, Sri Dilip Sharma and Smt. Sadhana Sharma was acquired. 4.5. In LA appeal No. 69/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 07/2008, land measuring 0.02 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3406/P under Khatian No. 46 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondents, namely, Sri Uttam Sharma, Sri Dipak Sharma, Sri Pradip Sharma, Sri Dilip Sharma and Smt. Sadhana Sharma was acquired. 4.5. In LA appeal No. 69/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 08/2008, land measuring 0.02 acres of bagan class of land relating to plot No. 3407/P under Khatian No. 712 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondent Sri Pradip Chandra Sharma was acquired. 4.6. In LA appeal No. 70/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 09/2008, land measuring 0.04 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3394/4518/P under Khatian No. 1536 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondents Shri Kajal Sharma was acquired. 4.7. In LA appeal No. 71/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 10/2008, land measuring 0.02 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3417/P under Khatian No. 479 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondents, namely, Smt. Kanchan Bala Dey, Sri Laxman Chandra Dey, Sri Nanigopal Dey, Sri Manik Dey, Sri Rinku Dey and Smt. Bulboli Dey was acquired. 4.8. In LA appeal No. 72/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 11/2008, land measuring 0.03 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3411/P under Khatian No. 1684 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondent Sri Hare Krishna Acharjee was acquired. 4.9. In LA appeal No. 73/2009 arising out of Misc. (LA) 12/2008, land measuring 0.03 acres of bastu class of land relating to plot No. 3412/P under Khatian No. 1410 of Mouja Dakshin Chandrapur belonging to the claimant-respondent Sri Naresh Ch. Sharma was acquired. 5. All the above lands were acquired by the LA collector for construction of approach road for FCI food godown pursuant to Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act dated 18.10.2006. In all the above appeals the value of land relating to bastu class of land was assessed @Rs. 1,50,000/per kani and the value of lunga and bagan class of land was assessed @ Rs. 1,40,000/per kani by the Land Acquisition Collector. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act claiming compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/ per kani. 6. 1,50,000/per kani and the value of lunga and bagan class of land was assessed @ Rs. 1,40,000/per kani by the Land Acquisition Collector. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act claiming compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/ per kani. 6. In their claim statements, the claimants stated, interalia, that the acquired land is very important for commercial and business purposes and that the Chandrapur High School, Gramin Bank, Sub Post Office, Telephone Exchange, Government Health Sub Centre, Electrical Sub Office and Market are near to the acquired land. 7. The appellants, being the opposite parties, resisted the claim by filing separate counter statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and also contended that compensation awarded by the LA Collector is just and adequate. 8. The learned LA Judge after considering the assessment note noted that the LA Collector has not considered the potentiality of the acquired land and did not adopt the correct procedure in determining the compensation as the acquired lands are situated in an important area. It is also stated that the method adopted by the LA Collector is imaginary and is not permissible under law and cannot stand on. 9. The learned LA Judge further considered the fact of day to day increasement of the price of the landed property within the area where the acquired land is situated and thereafter, enhanced the awarded amount from Rs.1,50,000/to Rs. 3,00,000/per kani with usual solatium and interest as per the LA Act. 10. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the finding of the learned LA Judge regarding determination of the market value of the acquired land is wholly perverse as the learned LA Judge assessed the market value of the land on average basis. 11. This Court has gone through the findings of the learned Court below which are as follows : “7. In the instant case L.A. Collector, South Tripura has not considered the potentiality of the acquired land with the land of similar quality and potentiality and did not adopt the correct procedure in determining the compensation as the acquired lands are situated in the important area. The method adopted by the LA Collector, South Tripura is whimsical and is not permissible under the law and cannot stand on. The method adopted by the LA Collector, South Tripura is whimsical and is not permissible under the law and cannot stand on. A Court has inherent power to take judicial notice on facts that fall within the realm of public knowledge. The increased in price of landed property is a fact within the realm of public knowledge and therefore, a Court while determining the market value would be within its right to take judicial notice of increase in price of the landed property. The Judges are not computer and they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and test the evidence. The acquired land situated near the market area having all amenities and facilities thereby. 8. Having regard to the factual situation of the case and taking into account the fact that the value of land in Tripura is increasing day by day and I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the value of the acquired land would enhance to Rs.3,00,000/ per kani and I answer both the issues accordingly.” 12. The learned LA Judge was not satisfied with the evidence produced by the parties including the sale deeds placed before him. Normally, at the time of determining the market value relating to an acquired land, the proximity of time relating to sale deed produced by the parties and the proximity of land involved in the sale deed as well as the land acquired in the project are of material consideration for identifying the comparable sale instances out of genuine instances and a court is to give preference to the sale instances of adjacent land in comparison to sale instances of land situated far away from the acquired land. In the instant case, the learned LA Judge neither relied upon the assessment report of the LA Collector nor the sale deeds produced by the claimant-respondents. He has only considered the fact that the value of the land in Tripura is increasing day by day and according to him it would meet justice if the value of the acquired land would be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/ per kani. 13. There is no doubt that when there is no reliable evidence and a market value is available, then the Court should try to ascertain the market value from the materials before it. 13. There is no doubt that when there is no reliable evidence and a market value is available, then the Court should try to ascertain the market value from the materials before it. While computing the market value, the mathematical precision relating to value of a land may not be possible in every case, but even in the same location or area, two different sites might have different value and in that case some sort of guess work is inevitable and in the instant case also, the learned LA Judge determined the market value of the acquired land on some guess work. 14. It would not be proper always to affirm the market value determined by the Court below on guess work but in the instant case, as the acquired lands are situated near the market area having all amenities and facilities and more so, area of the acquired lands are small pieces of lands and the same was acquired in the year 2006 and the acquisition of the lands are for the same project and from the same Mouja, this Court is of considered opinion that the learned LA Judge did not commit any wrong taking the judicial notice of the market value of the acquired land mainly noticing the day to day increase of the market value of the land particularly in the locality from where the land was acquired. 15. In LA Appeal No. 55 of 2009 and 56 of 2009 the judgment and award passed by the LA Judge providing Rs. 3 lakhs per kani for the acquired land was affirmed by this Court. Therefore, it would also not be proper to give different findings in the instant cases, as the lands acquired in all these cases are also covered by the same notification and were acquired for the same project. 16. In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. 17. Send down the LCRs forthwith.