Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 103 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Arati Nath

2016-04-12

S.C.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : Both the appeal and the cross objection mentioned above are directed against the judgment and award dated 13.04.2011, passed by learned LA Judge(Additional District Judge), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Civil Misc. (LA) 16 of 2009. The appeal and the cross objection were heard together and this common judgment is passed which shall govern both the appeal and cross objection. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Dutta for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondent and vice versa for the cross objection. 3. By notification No.F.9(1)-REV/ACQ/II/2007 dated 04.04.2007 followed by declaration of even No. dated 10.05.2007, land measuring 4.54 acres at Mouja Kamrangabari under Gouranagar Tehashil Kachari was acquired for construction of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kailashahar and in the process land measuring 0.73 acres of 'tilla' class belonging to the respondent i.e. cross-objector (hereinafter mentioned as referring claimant) recorded in Khatian No.481, plot No.998 was also acquired and in due process LA Collector determined compensation for the acquired land of the referring-claimant @ Rs. 98,500/-per kani. The referring-claimant received the compensation under protest with the request to make a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act to the learned LA Judge for determination of actual market price of the acquired land and, accordingly, the LA Collector made the reference to the Court of learned LA Judge which was registered as Misc. (LA) 16 of 2009. 4. In due process the referring-claimant submitted her claim statement and contended that the market price of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs.6,00,000/-to Rs.8,00,000/-per kani and that the acquired land of the referring-claimant was situated by the side of the main road which was very potential land and she purchased it with a view to construct her house thereon and that due to acquisition she has been deprived of the use of the land and according to her the LA Collector, awarded less compensation than that of the prevailing market rate. 5. The LA Collector also submitted counter statement inter alia contending that the LA Collector assessed the compensation after taking into consideration the relevant sale instances of the locality immediately before the date of acquisition and that the acquired land is 'tilla' class of land and the actual market price was awarded as compensation. 6. 5. The LA Collector also submitted counter statement inter alia contending that the LA Collector assessed the compensation after taking into consideration the relevant sale instances of the locality immediately before the date of acquisition and that the acquired land is 'tilla' class of land and the actual market price was awarded as compensation. 6. In course of trial the referring claimant examined herself as P.W-I and further in support of her case she proved notice in form No.9, copy of Khatian No.481 of Mouja Kamrangabari and a certified copy of sale deed No.1-2015 dated 02.08.2006 and those were marked as Exbt-1 Series. 7. On behalf of LA Collector, one witness namely Sri Pradip Biswas, Amin of the Office of the LA Collector was examined as O.P.W-1 and further relied on the documents namely-(I) certified copy of sale deed No.1-1527 dated 15.07.2005; (II) certified copy of sale deed No.1-1424 dated 02.04.2006; (III) certified copy of sale deed No.1-167 dated 02.02.2006 and (iv) certified copy of trace map of Mouja Kamrangabari and those were marked as Exbt-A Series. 8. Learned LA Judge by impugned judgment and award dated 13.04.2011 enhanced the compensation towards price of land @ Rs.6,00,000/-per kani for the half portion of the acquired land by the side of the road and @ Rs.3,00,000/-per kani for the rest half of the acquired land and also enhanced compensation for the standing trees from Rs.2100/- to Rs.10,500/-. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel, for the appellants submitted that learned LA Judge has not at all considered the sale deeds submitted on behalf of the LA Collector which were marked as Exbt-A Series. Only relying on sale deed No.1-2015 dated 02.08.2006 submitted by the referring-claimant, the learned LA Judge determined the compensation and ignored the sale deed No.1-1527 dated 15.07.2005 by which the referring-claimant herself purchased the acquired land @ Rs.83,000/-per kani. While the purchase deed of the acquired land itself was available before the learned LA Judge, submitted learned counsel, Mr. Dutta, the LA Judge was bound to consider it as the most authentic sale instance for determination of market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. While the purchase deed of the acquired land itself was available before the learned LA Judge, submitted learned counsel, Mr. Dutta, the LA Judge was bound to consider it as the most authentic sale instance for determination of market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. He has also submitted that sale deed No.1-2015 dated 02.08.2006, relied by the referring-claimant was a sale transaction of 0.08 acres of 'tilla' land whereas the acquired land was a bigger compact plot of land of 0.73 acres of same class and while considering that sale deed dated 02.08.2006 the learned LA Judge did not make any sort of deduction which is against the law settled by the Apex Court. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Satpal and Others etc. V. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3882 and the case of H.P. Housing Board V. Bharat S. Negi & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1800 . 10. Appearing for the referring-claimant i.e. the cross objector, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, has submitted that the referring-claimant purchased the acquired land by sale deed No.1-1527 dated 15.07.2005 and thereafter the price of the acquired land increased many fold and to prove the increase the referring-claimant proved sale deed No.1-2015 dated 02.08.2006 which shows that the transaction at the relevant time of acquisition was not less than Rs.6,00,000/-per kani. Referring to the map proved by the requiring Department/LA Collector, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel, has further submitted that the acquired land is situated adjacent to the main road whereas the land of the exemplar deed dated 02.08.2006 proved by the referring-claimant is away from the main road and though it is a small plot of land but since it is away from the road it indicates the increase of price in the mean time. According to Mr. Biswas, Learned counsel, the acquired land is a compact area of land and learned LA Judge committed mistake in bifurcating it in two parts and according to Mr. Biswas, the referring claimant i.e. the land loser is entitled to get compensation at least @ Rs,6,00,000/-per kani for the entire acquired land. 11. According to Mr. Biswas, Learned counsel, the acquired land is a compact area of land and learned LA Judge committed mistake in bifurcating it in two parts and according to Mr. Biswas, the referring claimant i.e. the land loser is entitled to get compensation at least @ Rs,6,00,000/-per kani for the entire acquired land. 11. As prescribed under Article 31(A) of the Constitution of India for every compulsory acquisition of land by the State, payment of compensation shall be made at the rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. It is, therefore, a constitutional right of the referring-claimant to get compensation for compulsory acquisition of land at the prevailing market rate and it is the obligation of the State to pay the compensation after proper determination of the market price of the acquired land. 12. Law in respect of determination of market price of the land acquired under the provisions of the LA Act, is fairly well settled and the best method to determine the same is to consider the prices obtained by contemporaneous sale deed whether of the same land or of the land in the vicinity. The relevant other factors which shall be taken into consideration are -the size and shape of the land, the locality and its situation, the user and potential value and the rise of depreciation of evaluation of the land in the locality. Where sale instance of the acquired land or of the comparable lands of the locality are available, the Court can safely take it into consideration and make the award relying on such transaction after giving due consideration to other factors. It is a settled law that example of sale transactions of small plot of land cannot be accepted as a sale instance of a bigger plot of land but such sale transactions can be considered after giving a reasonable deduction. It is also a settled position of law that if the sale instance of the acquired land itself is available on record and if it is considered to be genuine transaction it may be safely taken into consideration for determination of the market price at the date of acquisition after addition or deduction to the price taking into account the increase or decrease of the price after the transaction and before the acquisition. It is further a settled position of law that where there are several exemplars with reference to the similar lands the highest exemplar should be taken into consideration for determination of compensation. 13. Normally the sale transactions are held after vigorous bargain between the seller and the purchaser. When such a genuine transaction is found to have held, whether of the acquired land itself or of any other land in the vicinity, it may be taken safely as an instance of reasonable price. No doubt, it is a very difficult task to fix a price. Some sorts of guess work, assumption and presumption always take place in determining the market price of acquired land. 14. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the referring-claimant herself purchased the acquired land by deed No.1-1527 dated 15.07.2005. Copy of the deed is marked as an item of Exbt-A Series. It shows that the referring-claimant purchased the entire acquired land of 0.73 acres at a price of Rs.1,50,000/- only on 15.07.2005, which means she purchased the acquired land at the rate of around Rs.83,000/-per kani. The notification for acquisition was made on 04.04.2007. It is, therefore, evident that the acquisition notification was made after one year eight months of purchase of the acquired land. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has submitted that deed No.1-2015 dated 02.08.2006, proved by the referring-claimant shows the increase in the price of acquired land in the locality. That deed shows that 0.08 acres of 'tilla' class of land was sold at the rate of about Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. The land under transaction of sale deed dated 02.08.2006 and the acquired land has been clearly reflected in the map proved by the LA Collector. The acquired land is of plot No.998 situated by the side of the road and the land of plot No.881 of sale deed dated 02.08.2006 is also situated by the side of road but the purchased portion of the land according to the referring-claimant is away from the main road and the boundary description of sale deed dated 02.08.2006 shows that it was not by the side of the main road but it is by the side of the common passage of the village. 15. There is no allegation from either side that the sale instances proved by the parties were not genuine. 15. There is no allegation from either side that the sale instances proved by the parties were not genuine. Learned LA Judge only considered sale deed dated 02.08.2006 proved by the referring-claimant and he has not even discussed the sale deed dated 15.07.2005 proved by the respondents which is the deed of the acquired land itself, by which the referring-claimant purchased the acquired land about one year and eight months ago. Learned LA Judge also did not make any deduction taking into account the fact that the sale deed dated 02.08.2006 is of a very small plot of land. 16. It is a trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form a safe basis for valuation of large tract of land as the two are not comparable property. A smaller plot may be within the reach of many, whereas, a large block of land may be within the reach of only a few. Therefore, there had to be some reasonable deduction while taking into account the price fetched by a sale instance of a smaller plot of land for taking into consideration of price for a bigger plot of land. The most interesting feature in the case is that the purchased deed of the acquired land itself is available on record and the transaction was held only about one years and eight months ago. According to Mr. Biswas there was increase of price in many fold and the instance is sale deed dated 02.08.2006 proved by the referring-claimant. There is no other sale instance proved by either side to show that there was such a sharp arithmetical increase of the price within one year and eight months. It is quiet unbelievable that there was increase of price of the land in such village area within one year and eight months. It is an admitted position that Kamrangabari is a village away from urban area. The referring claimant admitted in her cross examination that the acquired land is not situated in a commercial area and there is no school and hospital near the acquired land. While there is no evidence that the price of the acquired land has increased about seven times during the period of one year and eight months, I find no justification at all to fix the price of the acquired land @ Rs 6,00,000/-per kani. While there is no evidence that the price of the acquired land has increased about seven times during the period of one year and eight months, I find no justification at all to fix the price of the acquired land @ Rs 6,00,000/-per kani. Learned LA Judge, in my considered opinion, was not correct in bifurcating the acquired land in two parts since it was a compact area of land situated by the side of the road and the acquisition has been made for the entire plot of the land. Had the acquisition made for a part of the acquired land by the side of the road, the classification for fixing the price as adopted by learned LA Judge would have been acceptable. No doubt the sale transaction dated 02.08.2006 was also a genuine sale transaction but that might have been transacted in any other unforeseen circumstances for which it carried such a huge price. It is a sale transaction for a very small piece of land even then I find no justification at all to take that sale instance as an exemplar totally ignoring the purchase deed of the acquired land of the referring-claimant. The Supreme Court in the case of Satpal (supra) has observed that 100 % increase within a very short period of time in the absence of positive evidence of prevailing trait, cannot be accepted. We may gainfully refer here the para-5 of the judgment which reads as follows:- “We have looked into the record and found that there is no explanation whatsoever for such a sharp increase in price of land in such a short time. The rise in price is more than 100 per cent within a very short period which is not the usual prevailing trend in rise of prices in the area where the acquired land is situated. The Court below found that sale consideration shown in Ext. A.W 1/1 to Ext. A.W.1/6 is more realistic and therefore relied those instances for assessing the market value of disputed land.” In the case of H.P. Housing Board (supra) as referred by Mr. Dutta, the Supreme Court has observed that where the sale instance is of a smaller piece of land, deduction of 33½% must be made towards development cost. 17. A.W.1/6 is more realistic and therefore relied those instances for assessing the market value of disputed land.” In the case of H.P. Housing Board (supra) as referred by Mr. Dutta, the Supreme Court has observed that where the sale instance is of a smaller piece of land, deduction of 33½% must be made towards development cost. 17. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances a reasonable guess work may be made that there was substantial increase of the price of the land in the locality and in my considered assumption the increase might be three times than the price by which the referring-claimant purchased the acquired land. Sale deed dated 15.07.2005 of the acquired land shows that it was purchased at the rate of about Rs.83,000/-per kani and three times increase of the same amounts to Rs.83,000 X 3= Rs.2,49,000/-per kani. In my considered opinion fixing of the price of the acquired land @ Rs.2,49,000/-per kani in the given facts and circumstances of the case may be taken as an appropriate and reasonable market price at the date of acquisition. The referring-claimant i.e. the cross objector is entitled to get compensation towards price of land @ Rs.2,49,000/-per kani. In addition there to the referring-claimant is also entitled to other benefits i.e. solatium and interest etc., as per law. Regarding the price of the trees no argument was advanced by either side. So the price fixed by the learned LA Judge is maintained. 18. The LA Appeal filed by the appellant is, accordingly, partly allowed. Cross objection stands dismissed. The referring-claimant i.e. the cross objector is entitled to get compensation towards price of land @ Rs 2,49,000/-(Two Lakh Forty Nine Thousand) per kani for the acquired 0.73 acres of land. She will be further entitled to get solatium and interest etc., as prescribed by law. The price of standing trees determined by the learned LA Judge is maintained. The Judgment and award passed by learned LA Judge is interfered to the extent as indicated herein-above and the appeal accordingly stands disposed of. 19. Send back the LC records along with the copy of this judgment.