The Executive Officer, Sabroom Nagar Panchayat vs Santosh Das

S.C. Das, J.—1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.02.2012, passed by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. Misc.(LA) 27/2010.

Heard learned State counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. P.K. Ghosh for the respondent.

By notification No. F.9(1)Rev/Acq/XIII/09, dated 06.07.2009 followed by declaration No. F.9(1)Rev/Acq/XIII/09, dated 29.07.2009, land measuring 1.140 acres belonged to the claimant-respondent and other legal heirs of original jotedar Madhab Charan Das, recorded in Khatian No. 4371, Plot No. 576/P, classified as ''Nal'' of Mouja Sabroom was acquired for the purpose of extension of existing motor stand at Sabroom under Sabroom Sub Division.

The L.A. Collector in due course determined compensation @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per Kani for ''Nal'' class of land and Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani for ''Bagan'' class of land. The claimant-respondent having dissatisfied with the price of land determined by the L.A. Collector received the amount under protest and prayed for referring the claim to the learned L.A. Judge for determination of compensation towards price of land afresh. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector made reference of the Case which was registered as Misc. (LA) 27/2010 before learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. The claimant-respondent i.e. the land owner submitted his claim statement claiming compensation towards price of land @ Rs. 80,00,000/- per kani and inter alia contended that the land is situated within commercial area of Sabroom town and it is a most potential land fit for commercial purpose and it is further alleged that the L.A. Collector did not evaluate the potentiality of land and awarded a lesser compensation.

On the other hand, the L.A. Collector and the requiring department i.e. the appellant herein also submitted written objection contending that compensation was determined taking into consideration the location and potentiality of land and it is also stated that the L.A. Collector himself visited the acquired land and determined the compensation keeping due regard to the market value of the acquired land.

In course of trial, the claimant-respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and the claimant-respondent relied on two sale instances i.e. the Sale-deed No. 1-119 of 2001 marked as Exbt.1 series and Sale-deed No. 1-417 of 2006 marked as Exbt.2 series.

On behalf of L.A. Collector one witness namely Chitta Ranjan Mandal, Amin of the Office of L.A. Collector was examined and no sale instance was produced or proved on behalf of the L.A. Collector. The requiring department i.e. appellant herein adduced no evidence.

Learned L.A. Judge taking into account the sale instance of Exbt.2 series, determined compensation of acquired land @ Rs. 52,00,000/- per kani.

Felt aggrieved, the requiring department filed the present appeal.

Learned counsel Mr. Nath appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned L.A. Judge relying on the sale instances enhanced the compensation 5(five) times than that of the award made by the L.A. Collector. The referring claimant did not produce any map of the locality to show that the land of sale instance of Exbt.2 series was of a comparable land and hence, the judgment suffers from infirmity. He has further submitted that the L.A. Collector fixed the compensation taking into account the valuation chart fixed by the SDM, Sabroom and the fixation of compensation on the basis of the valuation chart fixed by the SDM, Sabroom cannot be said to be unreasonable and inadequate. The sale instance was of ''Dokan''/''Nal'' class of land situated by the side of the National Highway whereas there is nothing to show that the acquired land was situated by the side of National Highway having similar standard.

Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that it is not disputed by adducing oral or documentary evidence that the Sale-deed proved by the referring claimant was not of comparable land. The requiring department adduced no evidence. The L.A. Collector examined Amin of the Office who has not even uttered a single line in his examination-in-chief that the Sale-deed produced was not of comparable land. Under such circumstances, though no map of the locality was produced before the learned L.A. Judge, taking into account the oral evidence of the claimant i.e. P.W.1 and the oral evidence of OPW-1 i.e. the witness of the L.A. Collector, it may be fairly concluded that the Sale-deed marked Exbt.2 series was of a comparable land and the learned L.A. Judge committed no mistake in fixing compensation relying on it.

It is a settled law that the best method of determining the market value of land acquired under the provisions of the L.A. Act is to consider the prices obtained in contemporaneous Sale-deeds whether of the same land or of the land in the vicinity. Where sale instances of comparable lands are available on record, the Court can take into consideration and make the award relying on such transaction.

In the present case the assessment note of the L.A. Collector dated 29.08.2009 shows that at the time of determination of compensation, 8(eight) sale instances of the year 2008 of Mouja Sabroom were examined by the L.A. Collector and he has observed that those sale instances were of different classes of land than that of the acquired land and, therefore, he did not consider those sale instances. He has fixed the compensation relying on a valuation chart of SDM, Sabroom. Neither the SDM, Sabroom has been examined nor any copy of that valuation chart has been proved either on behalf of the L.A. Collector or by the requiring department. Learned L.A. Judge has observed that a valuation chart is meant for collection of revenue at the time of sale transaction and it cannot be considered as a document of a transaction held between a seller and purchaser. I am in full agreement with the observation of learned L.A. Judge. A valuation chart fixed by the SDM for the purpose of registration office cannot be considered as a proof of market price of particular class or category of land. Market price depends on the evaluation of a property made after bargain between the seller and purchaser. It is a settled position that a genuine sale transaction of a comparable land may be taken to consideration for fixing the price of acquired land taking into account the other factors, relevant for such consideration, such as the date of transaction, the rise and fall of the price in the locality etc.

P.W.1 in his deposition clearly stated that the land of Sale-deed No. 1-417, dated 30.05.2006 was situated near the acquired land. OPW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated nothing that the exhibited Sale-deeds were not of comparable land. While there is no other evidence from the side of the appellant to contradict the evidence of the claimant, even in the absence of a map of the locality showing position of both acquired land and the land of sale instances, taking into account the oral evidence of both side, the sale instances may be accepted for the purpose of determining the market price of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. There is no question raised regarding genuinity of the sale instance. It is simply stated that the acquired land is situated about half K.M. away from the Sabroom market but it is an admitted position that the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of motor stand which means it is by the side of the National Highway and the sale instance is also a plot of land by the side of the National Highway under same Mouja. The sale instance reflected market price @ Rs. 78,00,000/- per kani but the learned L.A. Judge reduced 1/3rd of it with the reason that there is no evidence to show that the plot of acquired land is adjacent to the National Highway.

I find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge while fixing compensation @ Rs. 52,00,000/- per kani. The respondent adduced no documentary evidence to counter the sale instance relied by the referring claimant and hence, I am of considered opinion that the learned L.A. Judge has rightly taken into consideration the sale instance marked as Exbt. 2 series and the award suffer no infirmity and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

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

The parties to bear their own costs.