Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 191 (TRI)

Tapan Lal Bhowmik son of late Kaillash Chandra Bhowmik v. State of Tripura

2018-07-04

S.TALAPATRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as N. Chowdhury, learned GA appearing for the respondents including the respondent No.4. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short, LA Act) from the judgment and award dated 23.04.2013 and 03.05.2014 delivered in Misc. (LA) 07 of 2011 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. 3. The admitted fact is that following the due process, the land of the appellant was acquired for purpose of construction of Gomati right bank main canal under Mouja-Tepania pursuant to the declaration No.F.9(11)-REV/ACQ/IX/2008 dated 16.10.2008 which has officially been referred as L.A. Case No.04 of 2009. 4. By the award as communicated on 11.02.2010 the appellant was given compensation for a sum of Rs.75,600/- under Section 11 of the LA Act. The said award has been drawn on the different components available under Section 23 of the L.A. Act, 1894. The components as considered by the Land Acquisition Collector are noted below:- (1) For land 56,000/-, (2) Solatium Rs.16,800/-, (3) Additional compensation under Section 23(IA) of LA Act - Rs.2,800/-. 5. The appellant being aggrieved thereof, prayed for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act being Misc. (LA) 07 of 2011 in the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as he then was. 6. The Land Acquisition Judge by the judgment dated 23.04.2013 enhanced the land rate from Rs.40,000/- per kani to Rs.3,00,000/- per kani and accordingly awarded the other components. But the referring claimant was not satisfied. Now he has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act against the said judgment and award dated 23.04.2013 delivered in Misc. (LA) 07 of 2011. 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel at the outset has submitted that from the same plot another acquisition was made for construction of the railway track and the appellant being aggrieved by the similar determination pressed for a reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act being Civil Misc.(LA) No. 13 of 2012. In that case, the Land Acquisition Collector initially determined the land rate at Rs.2,00,000/-, which was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge to Rs.3,00,000/- per kani. 8. The appellant being aggrieved preferred an appeal before this court under Section 54 of the LA Act from the judgment and award dated 23.04.2013 as delivered in Misc. In that case, the Land Acquisition Collector initially determined the land rate at Rs.2,00,000/-, which was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge to Rs.3,00,000/- per kani. 8. The appellant being aggrieved preferred an appeal before this court under Section 54 of the LA Act from the judgment and award dated 23.04.2013 as delivered in Misc. (LA) No.13 of 2012. Finally, by the judgment and award dated 29.03.2017 having considered the evidence on records this court had raised the land rate from Rs.3,00,000/- to 7,00,000/- per kani and directed to give other components, on the basis of the said rate. 9. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel therefore has contended that the present appeal is also covered by the said judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 for proximity of acquisition. 10. On the earlier occasion, Mr. Chowdhury, learned GA had taken time for examination of the said judgment and today he has fairly submitted that the judgment dated 29.03.2017 squarely covers this instant appeal. 11. In view of that, this court is of the view that the land rate as decided by the Land Acquisition Judge at Rs.3,00,000/- per kani be enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- per kani and accordingly the compensation shall be re-determined pursuant to the provisions of Section 23 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is made clear that the solatium shall carry interest from the date of taking possession inters of Section 34 of the said Act. In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed. Draw the decree [the award]. Send down the records thereafter. Before parting with the records, the respondents are directed to pay the entire amount of compensation as enhanced by this court within a period of six months from today.