Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 340 (TRI)

Union of India v. Kanai Debnath

2017-08-22

S.TALAPATRA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant who by filing this appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, [the L.A. Act in short] 1894, has challenged the judgment and award dated 24.08.2011, delivered in Misc. (LA) 19 of 2006. 2. The respondent No.1, the referring claimant had 3 gandas (.06 acres) of land comprised in cadastrally surveyed Plot No.2633/9094 recorded in the Khatian No.3284 of Mouja-Madhuban under Surjyamaninagar Tehsil. The said land was acquired for construction of bye-pass road from Khayerpur to Amtali [the acquired land, in the judgment it has been stated to be situated under Uttar Charilam Mouja]. By the notification dated 29.01.2004, the process for acquisition was started. On 12.03.2004 the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued for acquisition of the said land. The L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, the respondent No.2 following the process under Sections 9 to 12 of the L.A. Act, had determined the award at Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. The referring claimant was declared to have additional compensation and solatium respectively @ 12% and 30% from the date of the notification with interest as provided under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. Thus, the total compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs. 45,637/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 urged for reference under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act and the said reference being Misc. (LA) 19 of 2006 was determined by the judgment dated 24.08.2011 which is under challenged in this appeal. 4. By the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the land rate from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani. The Land Acquisition Judge after recording evidence of the referring claimant namely Kanai Debnath (P.W.1) had proceeded to record the statement of one Debananda Debbarma (O.P.W.1). Through those witnesses the sale-deed No.1-6582 dated 09.06.2006 and the sale-deed No.1-2793 dated 14.04.2003 were introduced in the evidence. In the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006 for an area of land of 6 ganda, the consideration was Rs. 15.00 lakhs per kani. On such rate the value of the purchased land was determined at Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, from the sale-deed No.1-2793, dated 14.04.2003, it would appear that an area of land measuring 4 gandas were purchased at Rs. 60,000/- per kani. In the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006 for an area of land of 6 ganda, the consideration was Rs. 15.00 lakhs per kani. On such rate the value of the purchased land was determined at Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, from the sale-deed No.1-2793, dated 14.04.2003, it would appear that an area of land measuring 4 gandas were purchased at Rs. 60,000/- per kani. From the evidence, however, it cannot be gathered what would be the distance of the acquired land from the land as recited in the sale exemplar i.e. the sale-deed No.1-6582, dated 09.06.2006. That apart, when the sale-deed [Exbt.1] was admitted neither the vendee nor the vendor was examined, even the certified copy was not tendered for admitting the document. 5. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has raised serious objection to the said process and contended that there had been no regard for the process as laid down by the statute. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has further submitted that Land Acquisition Judge while determining the value of the land has held that the land value for the acquired land would be Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani. Mr. Majumder has raised a further objection contending that the land that has been acquired cannot be compared with the land as described in the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006. There existed substantial difference so far as size of those lands are concerned. 6. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimant has submitted that the court’s inquiry shall always be meticulous but it does not mean the inquiry ultimately would land up in a circumstance when it will find it to difficult to derive the inference. When the “fact” is sought to be exposed from the evidentiary materials by the concerned court but no evidence direct or substantive is found, the court has the tool under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to presume on the basis of foundation of ‘facts’ which otherwise do not stand as the direct evidence for a relevant fact. What Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted is that there should be no further inference from two evidentiary materials i.e. two sale-deeds. If this proposition is accepted, then it will be, in many of the cases, difficult to get closer to the truth. The experience of a Judge or a Judicial Officer provides them the element in the form of presumption to get closer to the truth. 7. If this proposition is accepted, then it will be, in many of the cases, difficult to get closer to the truth. The experience of a Judge or a Judicial Officer provides them the element in the form of presumption to get closer to the truth. 7. Having observed thus, this Court is alive that it should not mean that the wild play of the mind cannot substitute presumption which is well enunciated by various judgments. 8. In the case in hand, the basis of the re-assessment of the land rate is two sale-deeds as stated and one judgment and award, dated 16.08.2010, delivered in Misc.(LA) 18 of 2006. No certified copy of that judgment has been produced in the evidence. However, the L.A. Judge has taken judicial note of the said judgment dated 16.08.2010 as according to him, based on the said judgment he could safely take a view that the land value would be Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani as that the acquired land is similarly circumstanced. When this court confronted Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant whether he has examined or verified the said document or the rate as given for the land acquired under the said judgment and award dated 16.08.2010 to demonstrate that the rate of the acquired land in the present case cannot comparable. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC unfortunately could not give any answer. He has simply stated that the Land Acquisition Judge has committed an illegality by admitting the photocopy of a judgment or the photocopy of the sale-deed. Therefore, all the evidentiary materials shall be discarded from consideration. 9. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel when joined to resist such proposition has submitted that no objection was raised before the L.A. Judge while these two documents were admitted. Now the appellant cannot be allowed to raise such objection in respect of their admissibility. Moreover, Mr. Chakraborty has further submitted that it has been recorded by the L.A. Judge that the judgment passed by the same Land Acquisition court, may not be by the same Judge, therefore, being the part of the judicial records of the very court that court can take judicial notice of such record if no objection is raised in respect of the process. Hence, there is no infirmity in the process even though the process of admitting a document may not be regular. 10. Hence, there is no infirmity in the process even though the process of admitting a document may not be regular. 10. Having regard to all the submissions, this court is of the view that the evidence as led by the referring claimant as well as by the L.A. Collector is not very adequate to come readily to a very definite conclusion in respect of the rate. Therefore, the general assessment as made in the judgment dated 16.08.2010 cannot be straightway brushed aside and that can be accepted as the basis. Moreover, from the empirical comparison of the rates vis-à-vis the different points of time, it appears that there existed a high trend of increment in the rate of land. If the sale-deed No.1-2793 dated 14.04.2003 is considered at the relevant point of time that land value was Rs. 60,000/- per kani and it appears unquestionably that the land value had increased to Rs. 15.00 lakhs per kani in the same mouja when the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006 was executed. If deduction is made for location on the time-distance, keeping the rate of increment in view, the said rate would presumably come much above Rs. 3,50,000/-. 11. Having observed thus, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly the same is affirmed. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. If the award has not been satisfied, the respondent-appellants are directed to satisfy the award within a period of three months from today and the awarded sum shall be deposited in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. Send down the LCRs after preparation of the award/decree.