Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 372 (TRI)

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) v. Bimalendu Chakraborty, S/O Late, Durga Charan Chakraborty

2016-11-14

S.C.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : All these five LA Appeals, filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are directed against the common judgment and award dated 21.09.2012 passed by learned LA Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura in Case Nos. Misc. (LA) No. 61 of 2006, Misc. (LA) No. 62 of 2006, Misc. (LA) No. 63 of 2006, Misc. (LA) No. 64 of 2006 & Misc. (LA) No. 65 of 2006. 2. These appeals were heard together on the submission of learned counsel of both side since due to acquisition of land under same notification and same mouja all those appeals arose. 3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. R. Chakraborty for the referring-claimant-respondents and learned counsel, Mr. A. Sen Gupta for the LA Collector. 4. For the purpose of construction of N.F Railway line from Kumarghat to Agartala under Sadar Sub-Division at Mouja Purba Barjala, sheet No.4, land measuring 12.19 acres was acquired by notification No. 9(16)REV/ACQ/VI/99 dated 30.08.1999 followed by declaration of even number dated 12.10.1999 under Section 6 and in the process the land of the referring-claimants were also acquired and in due process LA Collector fixed compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per kani. Compensation was also paid for the damage to the brick-kiln and the standing trees thereon. 5. Referring-claimants received compensation under protest and on their request LA Collector made reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. 6. Before the learned LA Judge the referring-claimants submitted claim statement. The requiring Department i.e. the present appellant as well as LA Collector also submitted counter statements. One of the referring-claimant, namely, Sunit Das produced himself as PW-1 and also produced one sale deed and a valuation certificate issued by one Sri P Dasgupta, a private valuer, an engineer by profession. Those were marked as Exhibit-1 series. Learned LA Judge considering the materials and evidence on record enhanced compensation towards price of land @ Rs.35,000/- per kani and also enhanced the compensation toward damage of brick-klin to an amount of Rs.21,86,395/-. 7. Felt aggrieved, the requiring-Department i.e. the N.F. Railway filed the present appeals. 8. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Lodh for the appellants that the appellants in course of trial failed to adduce any convincing oral or documentary evidence that the award made by LA Collector was inadequate. 7. Felt aggrieved, the requiring-Department i.e. the N.F. Railway filed the present appeals. 8. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Lodh for the appellants that the appellants in course of trial failed to adduce any convincing oral or documentary evidence that the award made by LA Collector was inadequate. He has further submitted that the assessment order of the LA Collector was not considered at the time of passing the judgment. 9. It is an admitted position that the appellants N.F. Railway was arrayed as the respondent in all the reference cases before the learned LA Judge. Though they filed a counter statement but adduced no evidence. On behalf of LA Collector examination in chief of one witness namely, Nani Gopal Sarkar, was submitted but he was not produced ultimately for cross examination. 10. Since no evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents i.e. the appellants herein and the LA Collector, learned LA Judge decided the references on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the referring-claimants. 11. It is a settled law that a reference made under Section 18 of the LA Act should be decided on the basis of the evidence and materials produced before the LA Judge. The assessment order passed by the LA Collector itself is not an evidence unless it is proved before the learned LA Judge in due process. Learned counsel, Mr. Lodh tried to convince this Court referring to the assessment order of LA Collector but since it has not been exhibited, I am of the opinion that learned LA Judge committed no wrong at all. 12. One sale deed was submitted by the referring-claimants i.e. the sale deed No.1-3251 dated 03.04.1999, which was marked as exhibit. As I find the land of that deed also has been acquired and so the sale transaction ought to have been taken into consideration by learned LA Judge while determining compensation. Learned LA Judge considered that deed but did not award the compensation to the referring-claimants at the rate in which the transaction was held. Though the LA Collector did not adduce any evidence but some sale instances were mentioned in their counter statement and learned LA Judge has mentioned three such sale instances in the judgment. While those sale instances were not proved by adducing evidence, the learned LA Judge was not supposed to take it into consideration. Though the LA Collector did not adduce any evidence but some sale instances were mentioned in their counter statement and learned LA Judge has mentioned three such sale instances in the judgment. While those sale instances were not proved by adducing evidence, the learned LA Judge was not supposed to take it into consideration. The sale instance proved by the referring-claimants which relates to the acquired land itself, shows that a few months before the date of acquisition notification the sale was transacted @ Rs.60,440/- per kani, but the learned LA Judge awarded compensation @ Rs.35,000/- per kani. The referring-claimants, as it appears, are satisfied with the award made by learned LA Judge and, therefore, they did not prefer any appeal. The challenge made by the requiring Department i.e. the present appellant, in respect of the price of land fixed by learned LA Judge as exorbitant, is found to be of no merit at all. 13. Regarding enhancement of compensation toward damage to the brick-kiln, as I find, the referring-claimants produced documentary evidence i.e. the assessment made by a chartered engineer, namely, Sri P Dasgupta and that assessment has been exhibited by the referring-claimants. The referring-claimants made clear statement that even after their request the assessment was not properly done while the acquisition was made. As I find, PW-1 was cross examined on behalf of the appellant and not a single question was put to the witness that the assessment made by the chartered engineer in respect of damage of the brick-kiln was not justified. Under such circumstances, I find nothing wrong committed by learned LA Judge in fixing the compensation towards damage of the brick-kiln to an amount of Rs.21,86,395/-. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the appeals and hence all the appeals stand dismissed. However, no cost is imposed. 15. Send back the LC records along with the copy of the judgment.