Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons) - Appellant
Versus
Sukhen Ch. Roy - Respondent
L.A. Apps. 24 and 25 of 2009Decided On : 19-01-2015
For the Petitioner:A. Lodh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Deb (Paul), Advocate.
Compensation for acquired land must be based on concrete evidence and cannot be made on speculations or hypothetical schemes of future development.
Headnote:
L.A. Act - Land Acquisition - Section 4 - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The L.A. Collector acquired land for the construction of NF Railway Station yard and Railway line. The claimant-respondents challenged the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The L.A. Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land, which was contested by NF Railway in the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the L.A. Judge committed error in enhancing the market value of the acquired land, particularly when he himself concluded that the L.A. Collector did not commit any error in fixing the market value. The judgment and award passed by the L.A. Judge were deemed arbitrary and without evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the market value of the acquired land for compensation under the L.A. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compensation for acquired land cannot be made merely on speculations and hypothetical schemes of future development. It also highlighted the importance of evidence regarding annual income and sales of comparable lands in determining market value.
Final Decision: The judgment and award passed by the L.A. Judge were set aside, and the order passed by the L.A. Collector was maintained. The appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.1. The instant appeals are taken up together for disposal as the impugned awards are passed regarding the acquisition of land within the same Mouja and also covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, and accordingly, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant-NF Railway as well as Mr. Deb (Paul), learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The factual matrix required to be discussed for disposal of these appeals are as follows:
"The L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, respondent No. 2 herein, acquired 1.23 acres of Viti class of land under plot Nos. 9943, 9944, 9945, 9946, 9947, 9948 and 9949 of Khatian No. 5682 as well as 0.14 acres of land under Plot Nos. 9978, 9977, 9976/20381 of Khatian No. 13506 under Badharghat Mouja of Bishalgarh Sub-Division belonging to the respondent-claimants herein for the purpose of construction of NF Railway Station yard and Railway line vide declaration No. F.9(8)-REV/ACQ/XIV/97 which was published in Extra Ordinary Issue of the Tripura Gazette. It is also the case of the claimant-respondent that the L.A. Collector has made the reference arbitrarily without any reference to the prevailing market value and other surrounding factors and awarded Rs. 2,35,962/- as well as Rs. 31,301/- respectively, as compensation for the acquired land and the referring claimant-respondent demanded Rs. 10 lakhs per kani for the acquired land in question."
4. The respondent-claimants being aggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector made an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the same was referred to the concerned L.A. Judge. In the proceeding under Section 18, L.A. Collector appeared and vehemently opposed the claim of the referring respondent-claimants. The case of the L.A. Collector before the L.A. Judge was that the land in question cannot be compared with other commercial land and other associated items as the land in question is situated far away from the Agartala-Bishalgarh main road and over and above, the land in question was not adjacent to the ONGC Head Quarters, Jute Mill, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital and Siddhi Ashram Market etc. Considering all the facts and circumstances the L.A. collector awarded an amount of Rs. 41,000/- per kani for the acquired lands.
5. The appellant-NF Railway also vehemently denied the claim of the claimant-respondents and asserted that the L.A. Collector rightly determined the market value of the land in question. The learned L.A. Judge, after hearing the parties enhanced the market value of the acquired land in question from Rs. 41,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned L.A. Judge, NF Railway preferred the instant appeals through the Deputy Chief Engineer (Cons) of the NF Railway.
6. Mr. Lodh while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and award submits that the L.A. Collector considered all the relevant factors and the value of the neighbouring area and determined the market value of the acquired land but the learned L.A. Judge without any basis enhanced the awarded amount from Rs. 41,000/- per kani to Rs. 90,000/- per kani. He also pointed out that the learned L.A. Judge in his judgment and award specifically stated that the L.A. Collector did not commit any serious error at the time of award of compensation. Not only that, the respondent-claimants failed to produce any concrete proof that the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date and time was more than that of the rate of compensation awarded. He again submits that the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the award passed by the L.A. Collector without any basis, rather fully on speculation which is not permissible under law.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Deb (Paul) submits that the learned L.A. Judge rightly enhanced the market value of the land in question as the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of railway station
