Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 226 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Nikhil Chandra Das

2022-05-11

INDRAJIT MAHANTY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel Mr. A.K. Deb appearing for the private respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Tripura against an award dated 31.07.2019 passed in Case No.Misc.(LA) 176 of 2014 whereby the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala was pleased to award a compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) per kani apart from other consequential statutory benefits. 3. It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned Land Acquisition Judge did not take into consideration the findings of the Land Acquisition Collector which were based on actual grounds therein. It appears therefrom that the State while acquiring the land of the private respondent for the purpose of construction of an RCC Bridge over river Howrah on Chandrapur via Baldakhal under Sadar Sub-Division had acquired the land belonging to the private respondent. Admittedly, the Amin on behalf of the State had collected 4(four) sale deeds, which instances are extracted hereinbelow: Sl.No. Mouja Plot No. Classification of land Area in acre Deed No. & date Total value of land (In Rs.) Value of land per kani (In Rs.) Distance from the land proposed to be acquired. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Uttar Champamura, Sheet-1/P 356 Nal 0.10 1-2016 dt.06/05/09 50,000/- 2,00,000/- 818-5" ft. 2. -Do- 416 Bastu 0.054 1-2032 dt.24/04/08 60,000/- 4,44,444/- 304 ft. 3. -Do- 382 383 Nal 0.04 1-8564 dt.3/12/07 50,000/- 5,00,000/- On the proposed land. 4. -Do- 170 173 Nal 0.03 1-759 dt.08/02/08 1,49,500/- 19,93,333/- 1954 ft. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector had come to conclude that the value of the land @ Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) per kani for Nal, Pond (Nal) and Doba (Nal) class of land and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) per kani for Bastu (Nal) and Bhiti (Nal) class of land. In course of hearing of the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the claimant prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount on the ground that the acquired land has very high potential value and is having all facilities like electricity, water supply, telephone lines and other modern communication facilities and further that the National Highway No.44, i.e. the Assam-Agartala Road is situated at a stone's throw distance from the acquired land. It is further contended on behalf of the claimant that the Chandrapur Market i.e. Bazar is adjacent to the acquired land and the Inter State Bus Terminal at Chandrapur is only one-furlong away from the acquired land apart from the Law College and other market areas and hospitals. Accordingly, the claimant claimed a compensation @ Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) per kani. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Land Acquisition Judge referred to various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 and also took into consideration the determination made by the Land Acquisition Collector as reflected in internal page Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned judgment. But the learned Land Acquisition Judge found that the Land Acquisition Collector did not take into consideration the sale deed No.4 allegedly because the said land is far away from the proposed acquired land. The learned Land Acquisition Judge after hearing the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the documents formed the opinion that it would be proper to rely upon the sale deed No.1-5307 dated 13.11.2009 as the highest of the exemplars. From the said sale deed, it is transpired that a transaction was made between the purchaser and seller for the land measuring 2 kara 16 dhur on payment of consideration of Rs.56,000/-. That the land in issue was sold at the rate of nearly Rs.20,00,000/- per kani and it was a 'Nal' class of land which is also not disputed. The said transaction was made on 13.11.2009 whereas the date of notification for acquiring the land in question was 15.01.2010. In other words, the date of the sale deed and the date of the acquisition notice were very close to each other within 2(two) months approximately and, therefore, he determined that non-consideration of sale deed No.4 by the Land Acquisition Collector has resulted in failing to provide market rate to the land losers. The learned Land Acquisition Judge further opined that a distance of 1954 ft. The learned Land Acquisition Judge further opined that a distance of 1954 ft. which is less than 100 yards can make no real difference since the land in question was situated along the side of the highway near a market place and had other potential value and concluded that the value of the acquired land was approximately Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per kani even though it was a 'Nal' class of land. 6. In the case of acquired land which is termed as Bastu (Nal) class of land, he has mentioned that while Bastu (Nal) and Bhiti (Nal) deserve higher rate as because to raise 'Nal' class of land to become fit for construction of dwelling involves financial implication. He has also perused the map filed by the claimant and from the same he found that the land in question was touching the main road and the land was close to Agartala city though located under the Uttar Champamura Tehsil and accordingly, concluded that the value of the acquired land is much higher to the other lands compared and referred to in the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that the learned Land Acquisition Judge erred by not deducting development charges after determining the market rate that had to be deducted from such market value once determined. In the case at hand, admittedly, the land that was acquired by the State was for the purpose of building a bridge and connecting road thereto over river Howrah. This land was not acquired for any other purpose other than the requirement of building the bridge and approach road. Consequently, the issue of deduction of development charges in such an event does not arise and, therefore, with respect this Court cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State that deduction should be effected for development charges. 8. To make it further clear that development charges could be considered where potential value of land and the cause of acquisition is for development of land for various purposes. In the case at hand, the land has not been acquired for any developmental purpose except for constructing approach road and bridge. Therefore, there can be no question of any deduction on account of development charges. 9. In the case at hand, the land has not been acquired for any developmental purpose except for constructing approach road and bridge. Therefore, there can be no question of any deduction on account of development charges. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings and on perusing the impugned judgment, this Court finds no error justifying any interference with the order passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to pursue their remedy as a consequence. 10. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Send the lower court records forthwith.