The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), v. Sri Kanu Debnath and Ors,

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date of hearing and Judgment : 19.01.2023.

Heard Mr. Asutosh De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-N.F. Railway. None appears for the counsel for the respondents.

[2]

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the award dated

29.01.2020 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in Misc.(L.A) No.101 of 2014 wherein the learned Judge awarded an amount of Rs.18,53,280/- per kani for the acquired land.

[3]

Brief facts are as under :

The Government of Tripura has acquired the land in question belonging to the respondents. By a notification followed by a declaration, the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of "New Rail line" from Agartala to Sabroom. The acquired land had fallen under Plot No.627/P of Khatian No.79 of land measuring 0.3 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura awarded an amount of Rs.40,795/- for the acquired land including all statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned L.A. Collector, the claimant filed an objection and prayed for referring the case to the learned L.A. Judge for proper determination of compensation. The learned L.A. Judge after appreciating the documents on record, awarded an amount of Rs.18,53,280 per kani along with other statutory benefits.

[4]

The claimants appeared before the learned LA. Judge and submitted her claim statement alleging that the aforesaid land was used for agricultural purpose and due to acquisition, the claimant suffered huge loss

and the State Government did not compensate her adequately. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per kani for the aforesaid acquisition. In order to substantiate their claim, they adduced sale deeds bearing No.1-389 dated 08.03.2010 and bearing No.1-1645 dated

22.09.2010. They further stated that the area of acquisition had high potential value.

[5]

On the other hand, the opposite party contested the claim of the claimant and did not dispute the fact that the aforesaid land was acquired for the purpose of constructing railway line. However, they denied and disputed the fact that the compensation to the claimant was less. It was contended that the claimant was duly compensated as per the market value of land and was not entitled to get any further compensation for the acquisition.

[6]

The learned L.A. Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues : "(i) Whether the instant proceeding is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the award passed by the LA Collector is just, proper and reasonable?

(iii) Whether the referring claimant is entitled to get any enhanced amount of award and if so, up to what extent?"

[7]

The learned L.A. Judge after framing the issues, observed that the land under [Exbt.2] and land acquired were of different nature and their utility was also different. He further observed that the location of the acquired land

and the land sold by [Exbt.2] were different and the land sold by [Exbt.2] had fallen under a more developed areas in comparison to the acquired land. Therefore, after appreciating the documents on record and after hearing counsel for both sides, the learned L.A. Judge awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.18,53,280/- per kani for the acquired land. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder : "In the result, the application of the referring claimants for enhancement of award is allowed. It is hereby directed that the referring claimants are entitled to get compensation @ Rs.18,53,280/- (Eighteen lakh fifty three thousand and two hundred eighty) only per kani for the acquired land. The referring claimant will also get 30% solatium and 12% further enhanced amount of compensation upon the said land value computing from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act, 1894 till the date of award by the Collector or the date of taking possession of land whichever is earlier, as per Section 23(2) and 23(1)(A) of the Act respectively. The referring claimant will further get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession from one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum after expiry of one year till the date of payment upon the enhanced amount. It is also directed that interest will also be counted on additional amount as awarded u/s 23(1A) of the Act and upon the solatium awarded u/s 23(2) of the Act. The amount already paid shall be adjusted against the compensation awarded. In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost of proceeding."

[8]

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned L.A Judge, the appellant has filed this instant appeal seeking the following relief : "(i) Admit the appeal;

(ii) Call for the records of Misc.(LA) 101 of 2014 from the Court of Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma);

(iii) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and award dated 29.01.2020 passed

by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma) in connection with Misc. (L.A) 101 of 2014;

(v) Any other relief and relives as your Lordship deem fit and proper having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case."

[9]

Mr. Ashutosh De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned L.A Judge committed an error in determining the market value of the acquired land. He further submits that the learned L.A. Judge did not assign any reason in deciding the quantum of compensation for the acquired land and passed a whimsical judgment which is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the claimant at the time of adducing evidence, submitted some exemplar deeds for showing the present market value of the land but the deeds submitted by the claimant is far away from the acquired land. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside of the award dated 29/01/2020 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in Misc (L.A) 101 of 2014. None appears for the counsel for the claimant-respondents and the Land Acquisition Collector.

[10] After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that earlier this Court has taken note of the notifications in respect of the land falling within the vicinity of this area and, accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned L.A. Judge calls for no interference. Consequently, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The award dated 29-01-2020 passed by the learned

Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in Misc. (L.A.) 101 of 2014 is hereby confirmed.

[12] Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Munna S

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA L.A. APP. No.34/2021 The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway, Badarghat Railway Complex, P.O.-Siddhi Ashram, P.S.-Amtali, Agartala, Tripura West. …..... Appellant(s) V E R S U S 1. Sri Kanu Debnath, S/o Late Mahananda Debnath, 2. Smt. Sailabala Debnath, W/o Late Anil Debnath, 3. Sri Badal Debnath, 4. Sri Narayan Debnath, 5. Sri Goutam Debnath, All are sons of Late Anil Debnath, 6. Smt. Laxmi Debnath, 7. Smt. Saraswati Debnath, Both are daughters of Late Anil Debnath, All resident of Vill- Brajapur, P.O. Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala, Tripura, 8. The Land Acquisition Collector, District – West Tripura, Agartala. 9. The Land Acquisition Collector, Bishramganj, District-Sepahijala, Tripura. ......... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)