In determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, potentiality and proper consideration of all evidentiary documents are essential for just valuation.

JUDGMENT

I. Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned senior counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Ms. Ankita Pal appearing for the appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Saha for the respondent No. 1 as well as learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking to challenge a judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. (L.A.)-169 of 2011 whereby the learned L.A. Judge rejected the reference made by the L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation determined by the L.A. Collector.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in support of his claim that the land extending 0.20 acres acquired from the appellant ought to have been valued at Rs. 80,00,000 (rupees eighty lakh) per kani and not Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) per kani as determined by the L.A. Collector and as accepted by the learned L.A. Judge in reference.

4. The entire contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of the proceedings before the learned L.A. Judge the claimant had proven a sale deed dated 25.08.2003 and the said document was marked as Exhibit-1. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said document exhibited in the proceedings before the L.A. Judge was not relied upon or accepted by the L.A. Judge rather he proceeded to place reliance on Exhibit-A, a sale deed dated 01.07.2004, which was exhibited by the State.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the State contended that the learned L.A. Judge and the L.A. Collector had correctly assessed the amount of compensation due to the appellant and in fact, while the highest value of the sale deed considered by the L.A. Collector was Rs. 1,97,000 per kani, yet seeing the potentiality of the land and the purpose of its acquisition the L.A. Collector had enhanced that amount to Rs. 3,00,000 per kani. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no legal or factual/foundational basis for the claim made by the claimant in the present appeal.

The learned Government Advocate also highlighted the fact that the appellant has failed to establish the fact that the deed under Exhibit-1 was contiguous and/or near the land of the appellant which he admittedly has failed to establish.

Learned counsel appearing for the L.A. Collector supported the order impugned herein and also reiterated his grounds taken by the learned Government Advocate.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment of the learned L.A. Judge in the present case, it appears that the learned L.A. Judge did not distinguish the two documents exhibited by either side. On one hand, Exhibit-A produced by the State was of similar category of land as recorded in the land records of the land acquired by the State and further the same was enhanced due to the possible potentiality of the land to a higher sum. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant contends that Exhibit-1 which was exhibited by the appellant in course of the proceedings before the L.A. Judge was completely ignored and hence, the actual potentiality of the land was not taken into consideration.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 and in particular, the considerations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the potentiality of the land and in particular, paragraphs-8 and 14 thereof have been relied upon by the appellant which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"8. The materials placed before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court show that the