Compensation for acquired land must reflect its fair market value based on comparable transactions, emphasizing the highest value obtained in bona fide dealings.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents despite service of notice.

2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT from the judgment and award dated 28.09.2018 delivered in Misc.(LA) 19 of 2015 by the Land Acquisition Judge (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala.

3. The facts are mostly admitted in as much as the respondents did not prefer any appeal nor have they filed any cross-objection. Moreover they did not appear despite receiving notice.

4. In terms of notification No.F.9(4)-REV/ACQ/XIV/07 dated 28th April, 2007 issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, the land of the appellant measuring 0.0170 acres comprised in Plot No.9419/11003(P) in Madhupur mouza and recorded in Khatian No. 4321 was acquired for construction/up-gradation of link road from NH-44 (Amtali police station to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital at Hapania). The land according to the records falls in the Tilla class. The L.A Collector after hearing the claim of the appellant awarded a sum of Rs.30,897/- as the compensation inclusive of other components at the price of Rs.5,30,000/-(rupees five lakhs thirty thousand) per kani.

5. Being aggrieved by the said determination, the appellant pressed for reference under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT for determination of fair price of the acquired land. The said reference being Misc.(LA) No. 19 of 2015 was answered by the judgment and award dated 28.09.2018 which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the reasons given for discarding the sale exemplars as produced by the appellant-referring claimant cannot be accepted as it would be apparent from those sale instances that the land rate at the area is much higher than the rate awarded by the learned L.A. Judge. The learned L. A. Judge on appreciation of evidence led by the appellant has observed as under:

'13. For determination of the market value of the acquired land, the referring claimant in the instant proceeding has relied upon the following comparable sale transactions:

[7] Thereafter the learned L.A Judge has observed as under:

'15. Now, let me assess whether the market value of the acquired land assessed by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala was just and adequate.

For the purpose of Upgradation of Link Road from N.H.44 (Amtali P.S to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Hospital, Hapania) situated at Mouza-Madhuban, sheet no.5/P, under Bishalgarh Sub-Division, West Tripura District the Government acquired lands in Mouja Madhuban, sheet No.5/P. The present land along with other lands were also acquired in the year 2007 by a common Notification dated 25.06.2007 under Section 4 of the L. A. Act.

In course of argument the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the referring claimant has referred a decision of our Own High Court which was passed in connection with case No. LA App. 08 of 2013 and LA App 09 of 2013. On perusal of the same I find that the said judgment relates to the land of Badharghat mouja but in the instant case acquired land falls under Madhuban Mouza so the said decision cannot be considered as covered judgment in the instant case for just decision of the case.

The acquired land of this case is Tilla class of land. The sale deeds No. Sale deed No.7144 was executed on 08.08.2001 and Sale deed No. 7147 was executed on 08.08.2001. The a