The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair compensation and reasonableness in assessing the market price of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act.

Heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.

3. This is an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 passed by the learned L.A. Judge(Additional District Judge, Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 286 of 2011 for further enhancement of the award of compensation as ascertained by the learned L.A. Judge at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani.

4. The land acquisition proceeding has been started vide L.A. Case No.10(BLG/2010 by issuance of a Notification vide No.F.9(11)- REV/ACQ/XIV/10 P-1 dated 25.06.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide No.9(11)(REV)/ACQ/XIV/10 dated 27.07.2010 for the purpose of construction of drill site for the location KAD#17 under Bishalgarh Sub-Division, West Tripura District in respect of land measuring 1.31 acres covered by plot No.3818 under Khatian No.1265 situated at Mouja Dakshin Champamura, sheet No.4/P, class of land was ‘Bastu’(Tilla) and „Viti’(Tilla). The L.A. Collector awarded compensation of Rs.3,27,500/- for the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with other statutory requirements. Considering all factors, the total value of the land along with solatium stands at Rs.4,47,177/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the said award determined by the L.A. Collector, the claimant-appellant had sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the matter was referred to the learned L.A. Judge for determination of the actual market value of the acquired land.

6. The referring claimant appeared before the learned L.A. Judge and submitted his claim statement. In his claim statement, he has stated that considering the potentiality and topographical position he had claimed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- per kani along with other incidental benefits in terms of the law. In support of his claim, the land owner relied on some documents, like registered sale deeds and valuation certificate of the land of the locality issued by the competent authority. He has further stated in his claim statement that the acquired land is situated just adjacent to the village pucca (concrete) road. The land also enjoys all kinds of facilities, like electric connection, Class XII School, Panchayat Samiti Office, Zilla Parishad Office, Block Development Office, S.D.M. Office and the area is rapidly developing. It is also stated that the claimant-appellant after his retirement has started rubber plantation on the land and due to acquisition of the said land he has been deprived of the regular income which he was supposed to be earned from the said rubber plantation. The L.A. Collector did not at all consider those factors which he had suffered due to the acquisition of the land. The claimant-appellant also has become unemployed due to such acquisition.

7. The claim of the claimant-appellant was contested by the respondent OP No.3, the Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, Badharghat, who also has submitted counter statement and defended the award of the L.A. Collector. In their counter statement, the ONGC authority has stated that the claim of the claimant-appellant is baseless and the acquired land has no potentiality.

8. The L.A. Collector also filed counter statement before the learned L.A. Judge. They have stated inter alia that there was no ground for enhancement and also stated that the assessment made by the L.A. Collector was just and fair and the assessment was made comparing various sale instances on prevailing market price adjacent to the land. Hence, the amount of compensation so ass