The court upheld the L.A. Judge's decision to enhance land compensation based on location advantages, evidencing fair valuation despite conflicting prior cases.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Asutosh De appearing for the appellant-N.F. Railway and learned counsel Mr. D.K. Daschaudhury appearing for the private respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the North East Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway, for short) seeking to challenge an award dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (L.A. Judge, for short), Court No.1, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. Misc.(LA) 02 of 2013 whereby the learned L.A. Judge had been pleased to enhance the compensation payable to the land losers, i.e. the present private respondents from Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) per kani as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector to a sum of Rs.13,44,000/- (rupees thirteen lakh forty four thousand) per kani.

3. Mr. Asutosh De, learned counsel representing the appellant, submits that the land involved in the present case had been classified as 'chara' and 'tilla' category of land and further relies on a judgment rendered by this Court in L.A. Appeal No.26 of 2015 in the case of The State of Tripura & another v. Sri Manas Paul & another wherein land located in Salgarah mouja had been determined by the High Court @ Rs.2.50 lakh per kani. He further brings to the notice of this Court another judgment of this Court in L.A. Appeal No.65 of 2019 in the case of The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway v. Sri Amir Hussain. In this judgment, this Hon'ble Court relied upon the determination made in the case of Manas Paul (supra) referred hereinabove and concluded that the directions passed in Manas Paul (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the said case. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be allowed and disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in the case of Manas Paul (supra).

4. Mr. D.K. Daschaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings arrived at by the learned L.A. Judge in the impugned judgment and specifically stated that although the land covered in the judgments referred to by the counsel for the appellant is in the selfsame mouja and even though the land acquired from the respondents is 'tilla' and 'chara' in categorization, the land has certain peculiar and potential advantages and was fit for construction of residential use. While supporting the determination made by the L.A. Judge in the impugned award, he further submitted that learned L.A. Judge arrived at a conclusion taking into reference the sale deeds produced by the respondents, i.e. Exhibits-1 and 2 but deducted 70% thereof while arriving at a figure of Rs.13,44,000/- per kani.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the impugned judgment and the documents available on record.

6. It is an undisputed fact that whereas the respondents (claimants) had produced Exhibits-1 and 2, i.e. the sale deeds for the consideration of the learned L.A. Judge, it is also an admitted fact that no sale deed was submitted before the L.A. Judge on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector.

7. It is also an admitted fact that although the respondents did produce Exhibits-1 and 2 to form the foundation of his claim for compensation, he did not submit any map to show that the acquired land is situated in the vicinity of the land under which those two sale deeds were relied upon and thus the L.A. Judge was compelled to presume that the plots under Exhibits-1 and 2 are situated far away from the acquired land.

8. On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the claimants led oral evidence through PW-1, one Sri Dulal Shil and in paragra