Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 243 (TRI)

Tapan Kumar Datta v. State of Tripura

2022-05-20

INDRAJIT MAHANTY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely Tapan Kumar Datta from whom land total measuring 5.29 acres situated at Mouja Gakulnagar had been acquired by respondent No.1 for construction of N.E.C Road vide declaration No.F.9(8)Rev/Seq/II/2001 dated 07.01.2002. 3. Although the various classes of land acquired wherein he has been awarded a sum by the Land Acquisition Court, the appellant accepts the valuation made of the land. In the present appeal challenge is limited to the valuation made by the respondents of the segun plants (teak tree) said to have existed on the land in question which was acquired for the purpose noted hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in course of acquisition, an estimate was made for the purpose of valuation of trees existing on the acquired land by the revenue authority which is quoted hereunder: 'SURFACE DAMAGE DETAILS TOTAL SURFACE DAMAGE TOTAL COMPENSATION TYPE OF DAMAGE QTY RATE AMOUNT SEGUN PLANT 35 15.00 525.00 525.00 37,716.00 SEGUN PLANT MATURED 325 75.00 24375.00 25,125.00 SEGUN PLANT 50 15.00 750.00 25650.00 37,716.00 ' 5. The amount computed by the revenue authorities was duly contested by the claimant claiming an amount Rs.11,97,000/- towards the loss of trees on the acquired land which reads as under : 'Description of trees with its claimed value. 1) 35 nos. of segun plant .................... Rs. 700/- x 35 = Rs. 24,500/- 2) 325 nos. of segun matured plant Having 4' feet girth and 30' feet length. ............. Rs. 3500/- x 325 = Rs. 11,37,500/- 3) 50 nos. of segun plant having girth 2' feet and 15 feet length ......... Rs. 700/- x 50 = Rs. 35,000/- Total - Rs. 11,97,000/- The claimant is praying for Rs. 11,97,000/- minimum as compensation for damage cost of trees and crops etc. when possession handed over to the O.P. the claimant protested that proper nos. and description of trees were not recorded by the staff of O.P. but without paying any heed to it, forcibly possession was taken. It is mentionable that cost of one feet segun wood is more than Rs. 500/- or more in the market.' 6. when possession handed over to the O.P. the claimant protested that proper nos. and description of trees were not recorded by the staff of O.P. but without paying any heed to it, forcibly possession was taken. It is mentionable that cost of one feet segun wood is more than Rs. 500/- or more in the market.' 6. In support of the claim made by the claimant-appellant, a detailed analysis of how the claimant arrived at the claim figure was also produced before the Land Acquisition Judge which reads as under: 'Approximate volume and value of above said 410 Nos. of teak trees. Formula - volume = (Girth)2 x Length/16 1) (35+50) = 85 nos. of segun plant of each girth minimum 2' feet i.e. 0'6 metre and approximate height of 15' feet minimum i.e. 4'5 meter. Thus volume of each tree of girth 2' feet and approximate length 15' feet comes to (0'6)2 x 4'5 = 0.10 cum/16 Value of such each tree = 6000 x 0.01 Cum/= Rs. 600/- minimum. Thus total value of 85 nos. of teak trees = 600 x 85/= Rs. 51000/- 2) 325 nos. of matured teak trees of each 4' feet (1.2 metre) girth and 30' feet (9.00 metre) minimum. Thus volume of each such trees comes to (1.2)2 x 9.00 Cum/16 = 0.81 Cum. Thus value of each such tree = 9000 x 0.81/= Rs. 7290/- Now, value of 325 nos. of such trees = Rs. 23,69,250/- Thus total value of all the trees come to Rs. 51,000/- plus Rs. 23,69,250/- in total Rs. 24,20,250/- 3) In this circumstances, it is humbly prayed that your honour would be pleased to consider the above noted fact and calculation at the time of final decision of this proceeding for fair ends of justice.' 7. Further, the claimant-appellant himself in his examination-in-chief particularly in paragraph 4 of the same averred as under: '4) That, within the acquired land, I had my 35 nos. of Teak plant of value minimum Rs. 24,500/- each of value Rs. 700/-. Moreover, there was 325 nos. of matured teak tree having girth of 4' feet and length 30' feet each and value of each such teak tree would be Rs. 3500/- minimum and total value of 325 nos. of such trees comes to Rs. 11,37,500/-. Apart from the same, 50 nos. 24,500/- each of value Rs. 700/-. Moreover, there was 325 nos. of matured teak tree having girth of 4' feet and length 30' feet each and value of each such teak tree would be Rs. 3500/- minimum and total value of 325 nos. of such trees comes to Rs. 11,37,500/-. Apart from the same, 50 nos. of more teak trees of girth 2' feet and length 15' feet each were within the acquired land and my claimed value of each such tree is Rs. 700/- and total value comes to Rs.35,000/-. Thus I pray for compensation in total Rs. 11,97,000/- as damage cost of trees. Only Rs. 25,650/- was awarded by O.P as to damage cost of trees which is too poor and insufficient. All these trees have been cut down and taken away by the O.P to the serious prejudice of mine.' 8. The claimant was cross-examined and the following was the evidence obtained in course of cross-examination : 'Cross-examination :- I have not submitted any certified copy of the Map in connection with the case. It is not a fact that the land under Ext. 1 series, i.e., the land of Civil Misc. (L.A.) 15/2006 and Civil Misc (L.A.) 14/2006 are situating far distance from the acquired land under this reference. It is not a fact that with intent to suppress the actual position no certified copy of the Map has been submitted. It is not a fact that the L.A. Collector, Kailasahar considering all the factors adequately assessed the compensation in respect of the acquired land in my favour. It is also not a fact that I am disentitled to get any further compensation. It is also not a fact that compensation in respect of standing trees and crops on the acquired land was adequate and sufficient.' 9. Relying on the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere grant of 37,716/- towards valuation of teak plants is wholly erroneous and the very fact that the number of plants as noted in the assessment record existed on the land is not disputed by the State. Relying on the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere grant of 37,716/- towards valuation of teak plants is wholly erroneous and the very fact that the number of plants as noted in the assessment record existed on the land is not disputed by the State. On the other hand, the assessment made by the State did not contain the description i.e. the height, girth or age of the plants and on figure of providing such description and/or providing such misdescription the claimant-appellant has been denied of his rightful dues towards loss of the trees in question. 10. In course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the State was called upon to explain this Court the rate prescribed in the assessment sheet and the foundation or basis of such rates. 11. Learned counsel for the State was unable to give any positive response to the said query. A further query was raised to the learned counsel for the State as to whether any evidence has been led by the State in order to counter and/or contest the oral evidence provided by the appellant-claimant before the LA Judge. Unfortunately, the answer to that question was also utter silence. 12. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the claimant has been awarded the market rates for the trees that were undisputedly planted on the land acquired by the State. In this regard, a reference is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to a Government of Tripura, Department of Forest notification dated 22nd September, 1999, wherein the State Government had been pleased to revise the royalty sale price of timber and forest produce and fixed the rates therein. 13. It only be recorded herein that the rates prescribed stipulated therein for sale of timber has been provided by the appellant for mere reference and it is important to note herein that the claimant has not even claimed the rates at the rate prescribed by the State in the said notification for sale of timber. In fact, the claimant has claimed a much lesser figure in his claim statement. 14. In the light of the circumstances as recorded hereinabove, there is no dispute that trees existed on the land were acquired by the State from the claimant. In fact, the claimant has claimed a much lesser figure in his claim statement. 14. In the light of the circumstances as recorded hereinabove, there is no dispute that trees existed on the land were acquired by the State from the claimant. There is also no dispute regarding the number of trees. In fact, in the assessment records they have distinguished segun plant and have also noticed segun plant (mature) and the claimant also is not claiming any number of trees more than the trees recorded by the revenue authorities in the assessment report. 15. On considering the claim statement filed, the oral evidence led on behalf of the claimant regarding the valuation of the trees as extracted hereinabove as well as after perusing the cross-examination of the claimant and the further fact that the State has not led any evidence to the contra, this Court has no other alternative other than to accept the claim made by the claimant regarding the valuation of the trees. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The amount granted by the LA Judge to the claimant for loss of trees is set aside and in its place the valuation given by the claimant Rs.11,97,0000/- is accepted. 17. The decree passed by the learned L.A. Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent and all other statutory dues shall be computed thereon and parties are at liberty to seek the modified decree, as made in the present appeal.