AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Das, J.—1. Both the appeals mentioned above were heard analogously on the prayer of learned counsel of both side since the appeals have been preferred challenging a common judgment and award dated 31.05.2011 passed by learned L.A. Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in Case Nos. Misc.(L.A.) 18 of 2007 and Misc.(L.A.) 23 of 2008 and some other similarly situated L.A. Cases.
Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Debgupta for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents in both the appeals.
L.A. App No. 71 of 2012 is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 31.05.2011 in Case No. Misc.(L.A.) No. 23 of 2008 and L.A. App No. 72 of 2012 has been preferred challenging the same judgment and award dated 31.05.2011 in Misc.(L.A.) No. 18 of 2007.
By Notification No. F.9(12)-REV/ACQ/XIV/02 dated 23.07.2002 land measuring 5.45 acres at Mouja-Kamalasagar Sheet No. 12/P, under Bishalgarh Sub-Division was acquired for "Integrated Development of Kamalasagar Tourist Complex Plantation of Ornamental Tree and Ayurvedic Centre" in West Tripura District. In the process land measuring 1.71 acres of Tilla Class belonged to the appellant, recorded in Khatian No. 688, Plot No. 1436/1939 and 177/1938 was acquired and the L.A. Collector determined compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per kani. The land holder, i.e., appellant herein, received the compensation under protest and on his prayer the L.A. Collector referred the case to the L.A. Judge for determination of the actual market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. That reference was registered as Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 23 of 2008.
Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence and the learned L.A. Judge by impugned judgment and award dated 31.05.2011 determined compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 86,690/- per kani. The referring claimant, i.e., appellant herein, having felt aggrieved, filed L.A. App No. 71 of 2012.
By Notification No. F.9(17)-REV/ACQ/XIV/02 dated 11.12.2002 land measuring 2.79 acres at Mouja-Kamalasagar Sheet No. 1/P was acquired for the purpose of "parking place of vehicles and plantation in connection with development of Kamalasagar Kalibari area" under Bishalgarh Sub-Division in West Tripura District and in the process land measuring 2.31 acres of Tilla Class recorded in Khatian No. 688, Plot No. 210 and 212 in the name of referring claimant, i.e., appellant herein, was acquired and compensation was awarded by the L.A. Collector @ Rs. 50,000/- per kani. The referring claimant, i.e., appellant herein, received the compensation under protest and on his prayer the L.A. Collector referred the matter to the L.A. Judge and accordingly, Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 18 of 2007 was registered.
Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence and considering the evidence, the learned L.A. Judge passed the common judgment, as indicated hereinbefore, and awarded compensation @ Rs. 86,690/- per kani. The referring claimant, i.e., appellant herein, having felt aggrieved, filed L.A. App No. 72 of 2012.
The main grievance of the appellants is that the acquired land in both the cases are situated in the same Mouja adjacent to each other and those are similarly situated land of same class, whereas L.A. Collector awarded different compensation. Learned L.A. Judge awarded a flat rate of Rs. 86,690/- per kani, but that is also inadequate and not in accordance with the documentary evidence adduced by the referring claimants.
It is submitted by Ms. Debgupta, learned counsel for the appellant that under Notification dated 11.12.2002 some Lunga land measuring 0.48 acres belonged to one Madhu Miah was also acquired for the same purpose and L.A. Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani. The case of Madhu Miah was also referred to the L.A. Judge, which was registered as Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 17 of 2007 and the learned L.A. Judge while adjudicating upon that reference, awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani of Lunga class of land. It is candidly submitted that Lunga land belonged to Madhu Miah under the same Mouja and the Tilla land belonged to the appellant of the present appeals situated in the same Mouja adjacent to each other and that the Tilla land was more suitable for plantation as well as for parking etc. for which it has been acquired.
Ms. Debgupta, learned counsel, further submitted that same set of documents, i.e., sale instances proved in the case of Madhu Miah, i.e., Case No. Misc.(L.A.) No. 17 of 2007 and in both the present reference cases, i.e., Misc.(L.A.) No. 18 of 2007 and Misc.(L.A.) No. 23 of 2008. The learned L.A. Judge while deciding the compensation in the case of Misc.(L.A.) No. 17 of 2007 relied on Sale Deed No. 1-6263 dated 11.07.2002 and awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani, whereas while deciding the present cases, i.e., Misc.(L.A.) No. 18 of 2007 and Misc.(L.A.) No. 23 of 2008, the learned L.A. Judge observed that the sale instances were between the referring claimant and his brother and that the sale instances might be collusive and, therefore, he made an average of all the sale instances and awarded compensation.
It is further submitted by Ms. Debgupta that while compensation was awarded in Misc.(L.A.) No. 17 of 2007 @ Rs. 2,00,000/- was satisfied by the State-respondents, the present referring claimants, i.e., appellants herein, also may be paid at the same rate.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the land of Madhu Miah was Longa class, whereas the present acquired land are Tilla class and so, same rate cannot be awarded for Tilla and Lunga class of land.
I have meticulously gone through the judgment of the leaned L.A. Judge. It appears that the referring claimants exhibited four sale instances, namely:
Out of the aforementioned four sale instances, Sale Deed No. 1-6263 dated 11.07.2002 is of Lunga class of land and so, it cannot be taken as an exemplar for determining the compensation in case of acquisition of Tilla class of land. Similarly, Sale Deed No. 1-118 dated 19.01.2009 is a sale transaction long after the date of acquisition and that also cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel, Ms. Debgupta fairly submits that the same may be excluded from consideration. Sale Deed No. 1-5547 dated 20.06.2002 is a sale instance almost one month before the date of notification of the acquisition in Case No. Misc.(L.A.) No. 23 of 2008 and sale Deed No. 1-6401 dated 16.07.2002 is a transaction only a few days before the notification dated 23.07.2002 of Case No. Misc.(L.A.) No. 23 of 2008. The notification of reference Case No. Misc.(L.A.) No. 18 of 2007 was made on 11.12.2002, i.e., after those two sale deeds. There is no evidence that those sale instances were collusive or colourable sale instances, may be that one of the sale instance was between the referring claimants and his brother, but the other sale instance, i.e., Sale Deed No. 1-6401 dated 16.07.2002 is not between the referring claimants or their relatives and it was of 0.10 acres of Tilla land. That sale instance may fairly be accepted as a sale instance of comparable land for determination of compensation for the acquired land. That sale instance gives a price of Rs. 1,52,000/- per kani of Tilla class of land.
It is a settled position of law that a sale instance at the time of acquisition is an acceptable evidence for determination of compensation of the acquired land and taking into consideration that sale instance, I think it will be appropriate to award compensation @ Rs. 1,52,000/- per kani. The learned L.A. Judge was not correct in discarding the sale instances and making an average of all the sale instances.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the referring claimants, i.e., appellants herein, shall be entitled to get compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,52,000/- per kani and he shall be also entitled to get solatium and other statutory interest, i.e., interest @ 9% per annum from the date of possession for one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the total amount of compensation.
Both the appeals accordingly stands disposed of.
Send back the lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment.