Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The Union of India – Appellant
Vs.
Sri Kanai Debnath, son of Lt. Ramesh Debnath and Ors. - Respondents
LA APP 7 OF 2013
Decided On : 22-08-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Biswanath Majumder
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Chakaraborty
The court's reliance on the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to support its decision and the observation of a high trend of increment in the land rate.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Challenge to judgment and award under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1894 - Sections 6, 9, 12, 18(1), 34, and 114 discussed - Court enhanced land rate based on sale-deeds and previous judgment - Objection raised on comparability of acquired land with sale-deed land - Court's reliance on presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act - Affirmation of impugned judgment and order
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgment and award under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1894, which had enhanced the land rate from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani. The acquired land was for construction of a bye-pass road, and the referring claimant sought additional compensation and solatium.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the judgment and order, stating that the evidence was not very adequate to come to a definite conclusion on the rate. It relied on the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and observed a high trend of increment in the land rate, ultimately finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Issues: Challenge to the enhancement of land rate, comparability of acquired land with sale-deed land, admissibility of evidence, and satisfaction of the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to support its decision and observed a high trend of increment in the land rate, ultimately finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent-appellants were directed to satisfy the award within three months.
Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant who by filing this appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, [the L.A. Act in short] 1894, has challenged the judgment and award dated 24.08.2011, delivered in Misc. (LA) 19 of 2006.
2. The respondent No.1, the referring claimant had 3 gandas (.06 acres) of land comprised in cadastrally surveyed Plot No.2633/9094 recorded in the Khatian No.3284 of Mouja-Madhuban under Surjyamaninagar Tehsil. The said land was acquired for construction of bye-pass road from Khayerpur to Amtali [the acquired land, in the judgment it has been stated to be situated under Uttar Charilam Mouja]. By the notification dated 29.01.2004, the process for acquisition was started. On 12.03.2004 the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued for acquisition of the said land. The L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, the respondent No.2 following the process under Sections 9 to 12 of the L.A. Act, had determined the award at Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. The referring claimant was declared to have additional compensation and solatium respectively @ 12% and 30% from the date of the notification with interest as provided under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. Thus, the total compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs. 45,637/-.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 urged for reference under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act and the said reference being Misc. (LA) 19 of 2006 was determined by the judgment dated 24.08.2011 which is under challenged in this appeal.
4. By the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the land rate from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani. The Land Acquisition Judge after recording evidence of the referring claimant namely Kanai Debnath (P.W.1) had proceeded to record the statement of one Debananda Debbarma (O.P.W.1). Through those witnesses the sale-deed No.1-6582 dated 09.06.2006 and the sale-deed No.1-2793 dated 14.04.2003 were introduced in the evidence. In the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006 for an area of land of 6 ganda, the consideration was Rs. 15.00 lakhs per kani. On such rate the value of the purchased land was determined at Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, from the sale-deed No.1-2793, dated 14.04.2003, it would appear that an area of land measuring 4 gandas were purchased at Rs. 60,000/- per kani. From the evidence, however, it cannot be gathered what would be the distance of the acquired land from the land as recited in the sale exemplar i.e. the sale-deed No.1-6582, dated 09.06.2006. That apart, when the sale-deed [Exbt.1] was admitted neither the vendee nor the vendor was examined, even the certified copy was not tendered for admitting the document.
5. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has raised serious objection to the said process and contended that there had been no regard for the process as laid down by the statute. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has further submitted that Land Acquisition Judge while determining the value of the land has held that the land value for the acquired land would be Rs. 3,50,000/- per kani. Mr. Majumder has raised a further objection contending that the land that has been acquired cannot be compared with the land as described in the sale-deed dated 09.06.2006. There existed substantial difference so far as size of those lands are concerned.
6. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimant has submitted that the court’s inquiry shall always be meticulous but it does not mean the inquiry ultimately would land up in a circumstance when it will find it to difficult to derive the inference. When the “fact” is sought to be exposed from the evidentiary materials by the concerned court but no evidence direct or substantive is found, the court has the tool under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to presume on the basis of foundation of ‘facts’ which otherwise do not stand as the direct evidence for a relevant fact. What Mr. B. Majumder, learned CG
