Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 29 (TRI)

Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons) v. Sukhen Ch. Roy

2015-01-19

U.B.SAHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. The instant appeals are taken up together for disposal as the impugned awards are passed regarding the acquisition of land within the same Mouja and also covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, and accordingly, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant-NF Railway as well as Mr. Deb (Paul), learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The factual matrix required to be discussed for disposal of these appeals are as follows: "The L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, respondent No. 2 herein, acquired 1.23 acres of Viti class of land under plot Nos. 9943, 9944, 9945, 9946, 9947, 9948 and 9949 of Khatian No. 5682 as well as 0.14 acres of land under Plot Nos. 9978, 9977, 9976/20381 of Khatian No. 13506 under Badharghat Mouja of Bishalgarh Sub-Division belonging to the respondent-claimants herein for the purpose of construction of NF Railway Station yard and Railway line vide declaration No. F.9(8)-REV/ACQ/XIV/97 which was published in Extra Ordinary Issue of the Tripura Gazette. It is also the case of the claimant-respondent that the L.A. Collector has made the reference arbitrarily without any reference to the prevailing market value and other surrounding factors and awarded Rs. 2,35,962/- as well as Rs. 31,301/- respectively, as compensation for the acquired land and the referring claimant-respondent demanded Rs. 10 lakhs per kani for the acquired land in question." 4. The respondent-claimants being aggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector made an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the same was referred to the concerned L.A. Judge. In the proceeding under Section 18, L.A. Collector appeared and vehemently opposed the claim of the referring respondent-claimants. The case of the L.A. Collector before the L.A. Judge was that the land in question cannot be compared with other commercial land and other associated items as the land in question is situated far away from the Agartala-Bishalgarh main road and over and above, the land in question was not adjacent to the ONGC Head Quarters, Jute Mill, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital and Siddhi Ashram Market etc. Considering all the facts and circumstances the L.A. collector awarded an amount of Rs. 41,000/- per kani for the acquired lands. 5. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital and Siddhi Ashram Market etc. Considering all the facts and circumstances the L.A. collector awarded an amount of Rs. 41,000/- per kani for the acquired lands. 5. The appellant-NF Railway also vehemently denied the claim of the claimant-respondents and asserted that the L.A. Collector rightly determined the market value of the land in question. The learned L.A. Judge, after hearing the parties enhanced the market value of the acquired land in question from Rs. 41,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned L.A. Judge, NF Railway preferred the instant appeals through the Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons) of the NF Railway. 6. Mr. Lodh while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and award submits that the L.A. Collector considered all the relevant factors and the value of the neighbouring area and determined the market value of the acquired land but the learned L.A. Judge without any basis enhanced the awarded amount from Rs. 41,000/- per kani to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. He also pointed out that the learned L.A. Judge in his judgment and award specifically stated that the L.A. Collector did not commit any serious error at the time of award of compensation. Not only that, the respondent-claimants failed to produce any concrete proof that the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date and time was more than that of the rate of compensation awarded. He again submits that the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the award passed by the L.A. Collector without any basis, rather fully on speculation which is not permissible under law. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Deb (Paul) submits that the learned L.A. Judge rightly enhanced the market value of the land in question as the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of railway station yard and railway line. She also submits that at the time of determination of market value of the acquired land the Court has to see the purpose for which the land is being acquired. 8. Before deciding the appeals, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the findings of the learned L.A. Judge on the basis of which he has enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs. 41,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. 8. Before deciding the appeals, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the findings of the learned L.A. Judge on the basis of which he has enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs. 41,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. It appears from the judgment and awards as impugned that the learned L.A. Judge noted, inter alia, that "on the other hand on perusal of the documents of the opposite-parties I am of the opinion that they have not committed any serious error at the time of awarding the payment of compensation." It is also stated by the L.A. Judge that "the petitioner failed to produce any concrete proof that the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the relevant date and time was more-than that of awarded amount of compensation". It is not clear then on the basis of what the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the awarded amount from Rs. 41,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. Even if this Court considers that the purpose of acquisition has to be looked into by the L.A. Judge while deciding a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act then also question arises that at the time of fixing the market value the deduction of development charges has to be excluded. 9. By this time it is settled that in case of land the market value is generally ascertained on a consideration of the prices obtained by sale of adjoining land with similar advantages. Where there are no sales of comparable lands, the value must be found in some other way. One method is to take the annual income which the owner is expected to obtain from the land and to capitalize it by a number of years' purchase. The capitalized value is then taken as the market value which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing buyer. But in the instant case, no sale instances relating to comparable land has been produced by the respondent-claimants and even there is no evidence regarding any annual income from the acquired land. Compensation cannot be made merely on speculations and hypothetical schemes of the future development of the land. 10. But in the instant case, no sale instances relating to comparable land has been produced by the respondent-claimants and even there is no evidence regarding any annual income from the acquired land. Compensation cannot be made merely on speculations and hypothetical schemes of the future development of the land. 10. Upon going through the findings of the learned L.A. Judge and considering the other materials as available before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned L.A. Judge committed error in enhancing the market value of the acquired land, particularly when he himself came to the conclusion that the L.A. Collector did not commit any error while fixing the market value of the acquired land. More so, the judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge is wholly arbitrary and perverse as the same is without any evidence. 11. Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge as impugned in these appeals are hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned L.A. Collector is maintained. With the above, the instant appeals are allowed. Send down the LCR.