Sri Chittaranjan Saha, S/o Late Morari Mohan Saha vs The Executive Engineer, & Anr.

Both the appeals were taken up together on the prayer of learned counsel, Mr. J.P. Saha for the appellant. It is submitted by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that both the appeals have been filed by the same appellant challenging the judgment and award passed by learned L.A. Judge in two different land acquisition cases i.e. Case No.Misc.(LA) 112 of 2012 and Misc.(LA) 113 of 2012 but both the cases arose out of acquisition of land under same notification and same Mouja and the nature of land was also identical.

No representation on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice.

Heard learned counsel, Mr. J.P. Saha for the appellants.

For construction of approach road leading to Agartala railway station from NH-44 (Siddhi Ashram) to Agartala Bye Pass road, under Agartala Sub-division in West Tripura District, land measuring 0.9610 acres of different class, belonging to the appellant (herein-after mentioned as referring claimant) and different other land holders were acquired and for ''Viti''/ ''Tilla'' class of land, compensation was determined @ Rs.24,00,000/- (rupees twenty four lakh) per kani by the L.A. Collector. The referring claimant claimed compensation @ Rs.1,00,00,000/- ( rupees one crore) per kani. Reference was made on the prayer of the referring claimant under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and in course of hearing of the reference, the referring claimant as well as the L.A. Collector submitted claim statement and counter statement respectively and also adduced evidence both oral and documentary.

In both the cases the referring claimant relied on a Sale-deed No.1-3368, dated 04.07.2008 which was marked as Exbt.1 series. L.A. Collector also in both the cases relied on following four sale instances which were marked as Exbt. A series.

i. Sale Deed No.1-12548 dated 21.11.2006,

ii. Sale Deed No.1-7948 dated 29.11.2007,

iii. Sale Deed No.1-74 dated 04.01.2008 and

iv. Sale Deed No.1-166 dated 08.01.2008.

The referring claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and on behalf of L.A. Collector, one Debananda Debbarma, a Surveyor of the office of Collector has been examined as D.W.1.

Appearing on behalf of the referring claimant i.e. the appellant, Mr. Saha, learned counsel argued that the Sale-deed dated 04-07-2008 as proved on behalf of the referring claimant was of similarly situated land and there was no reason at all in not giving compensation at the rate of that sale instance. The sale instances submitted on behalf of the respondent-L.A. Collector were of much less value but those were also of same locality.

For determination of market price of acquired land, it is quite settled that the comparable sale instances of the locality or the sale instances of the acquired land may be fairly taken into consideration for determination of compensation. Burden lies on the referring claimant to show that the acquired land was valued much more than that what was determined by the L.A. Collector. The referring claimant was supposed to adduce evidence both documentary and oral to prove his case that he was entitled to better/higher price.

Exbt.1 series is a sale instance dated 04.07.2008 which was of a plot of land measuring 105 Sq.ft. and it carries abnormal value of Rs.1,00,000/-. The date of notification of acquisition was 29.08.2008 and this sale instance of very small piece of land was of 04.07.2008 i.e. a little bit of more than one month. Be that as it may, the genuinity of this sale instance has not been challenged by the respondents. It is of same Mouja. But there is no evidence adduced by the referring claimant to show the distance between the acquired land and the land of the sale instance. It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated by the side of Siddhi Ashram-Dukli-Madhuban-Jampuijala road. It starts from Siddhi Ashram. Siddhi Ashram is a tri-junction of that road with NH-44. So, the land at Siddhi Ashram carries a higher price but as soon as it proceeds towards south-east through Siddhi Ashram- Dukli-Madhuban-Jampuijala road, the price will gradually decrease. The area has become developed after the Agartala railway station was set up at Mouja Badharghat which is about a kilometer away from Siddhi Ashram tri-junction. The acquired land of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Saha is in between trijunction of Siddhi Ashram and location of railway station. This area no doubt has developed after the railway station was set up and before that it was not so developed and not so potential for any other purpose except that of residential or cultivation purpose. The L.A. Collector in his assessment note assigned reason that the area has developed and the price is increasing sharply which is also reflected in the written statement submitted by the respondents. Referring claimant in his evidence stated about the increase of price in the locality but to get the benefit of the sale instance which the petitioner has relied, nothing has been stated in the deposition of the petitioner as to what was the distance between the land of exemplar deed and the acquired land. How the acquired land and the land of exemplar deed should be treated at par to carry the same price. Acquired lands are also very small pieces of land. The learned L.A. Judge though did not rely on the exemplar deed dated 04.07.2008 (Exbt.1 series) but has considered the location of the land and its potential value. Some sorts of assumption and presumption and some hypothesis are always to be applied while determining compensation. It is an admitted position that the road side land between the railway station and the Siddhi Ashram trijunction has become very important after the railway station was set up and so the potential value of the land has increased manifold.

Learned L.A. Judge, therefore, increased the compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- per kani by judgment and award dated 29.08.2013 from that of Rs.24,00,000/- per kani which was fixed by the L.A. Collector. Taking into account the same factor since the price of the land was increased and had that land was not acquired, the referring claimant would use the same for any other better purpose such as for commercial purpose, I think a little bit increase of the price will be appropriate in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land @ Rs.33,00,000/- (rupees thirty three lakh) per kani. The enhanced amount with all other benefits, in the same tune, as directed by the learned L.A. Judge shall be paid to the appellant according to law.

Both the appeals accordingly stand disposed of with the above direction.

Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.