Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 326 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Raju Bala Dey (wife)

2016-10-03

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land-loser respondents. None appears for the respondent No.2 despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the land acquisition Act, 1894, the judgment and award dated 25.06.2013, delivered in Misc.(L.A.) 34/2010 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur now Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur has been questioned. 3. It is not in dispute that for purpose of construction of Gomati Right Bank Main Canal at Mouja Rajnagar under Udaipur Sub-Division, the land measuring 0.40 acres comprised in Khatian No. 394 of Mouja Rajnagar, Hal Plot No. 1052/p has been acquired under notification No. F.9(11)Rev/Acq/IX/2008 dated 16.10.2008 from the original respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for the land in the following manner: For land Rs. 2,00,000/- For trees and crops Rs.7,910/- Additional Compensation under Section 23(2 : Solatium Rs.60,000/- Additional compensation under section 23(1)(a) Rs.20,000/- Thus total compensation came to Rs.2,87,910/- 4. Being aggrieved by the said award the original respondent No.1, pressed for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 for fresh determination of the land value. Accordingly, that was referred to the Land Acquisition judge, being Misc. (LA)34 of 2010. By the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2013 the LA judge has reassessed the compensation by determining the land value @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per kani, in lieu of Rs.2,00,000/- as was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, value of trees at Rs. 15,800/- instead of Rs. 7,890/- and interest in terms of Section 34 of the LA Act. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that by the judgment dated 29.06.2016 delivered in a batch of LA appeals vide LA App. No. 40 of 2013 [State of Tripura & Others versus Smt. Sabitri Shil & Others] etc. this court has considered the various aspects for determination of the land value of the land acquired for the project from the contiguous tract of land. Mr. No. 40 of 2013 [State of Tripura & Others versus Smt. Sabitri Shil & Others] etc. this court has considered the various aspects for determination of the land value of the land acquired for the project from the contiguous tract of land. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has also fairly submitted that in the Table-3 of the said judgment the very basis of the determination of the land value was noticed by this court for purpose of examining justifiability of the rate as granted by the Land Acquisition judge under the same project and the same notification. In the said judgment dated 29.06.2016 the following has been observed and directed by this court: “19. This Court does not have any difficulty to observe that Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lacs) per kani for Viti class of land is not the adequate market rate and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the Viti Class of land, having due regard to the comparable deeds, shall fetch a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs) per kani and on following the process of standardization, Chara including Nal class of land, shall fetch a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight lacs) per kani whereas Bagan, inclusive of both the sub classes, shall bring Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) per kani. Accordingly, the impugned judgments awards stand interfered with and modified. It is made clear that with that rate, the claimant-respondents shall be entitled to all statutory components for purpose of calculating the compensation, meaning the solatium at 30% of the land value with interest, along with 12% as the additional compensation and the statutory interest. The compensation shall having been calculated accordingly, be paid within a period of 5(five) months from today by the L.A. Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur.” 6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has further stated that this appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment. With the said proposition Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel has not raised any objection. 7. Having regard to the materials placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that this case is clearly covered by the said judgment dated 29.06.2016 and as such the impugned judgment and award may be interfered with and modified as under : The value of the acquired land shall be Rs. 8,00,000/- per kanni. 7. Having regard to the materials placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that this case is clearly covered by the said judgment dated 29.06.2016 and as such the impugned judgment and award may be interfered with and modified as under : The value of the acquired land shall be Rs. 8,00,000/- per kanni. The compensation as awarded by the land acquisition judge for the trees shall remain unaltered. It goes without saying after determining the land value the other components viz. solatium @ 30% from the date of possession and 12% as the additional compensation and the statutory interest under Section 34 of the LA Act shall be added. The sum as awarded shall be paid by the appellants within a period of 5 (five) months from today. The amount if any, is paid by now shall be deducted from the awarded sum. 8. With these observations and direction, this appeal stands partly allowed. Draw the award/decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.