Compensation for acquired land must consider the highest relevant market exemplars and just deductions based on actual development needs, not arbitrary percentages.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The facts and law involved in both of the appeals being identical, they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The present appeals have been filed by the original claimants seeking to challenge the judgment and award dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia (Learned LA Judge for short) in LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 whereby the learned LA Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the LA Collector for acquisition of their land from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani along with other statutory benefits.

4. Aggrieved claimants have preferred these appeals claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.80,00,000/- per kani.

5. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant appellants submits that the land in question was acquired for extension of the existing playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school in Hrishyamukh mouja. According to learned counsel, the school is situated in an ideal location having easy access to the main roads and surrounded by commercial buildings and other institutions. Moreover, considering the shape and utility of the land, it has been acquired for the purpose of extension of the playground of the H.S. school. Counsel, therefore, contends that the learned LA Judge should have considered the fact that the land is of great potential value, inasmuch as, it is situated at an ideal location having main roads on all sides and other amenities like proximity with health care centres, banks, shops etc.

6. Further contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellants is that the assessment note of the LA Collector would indicate that several sale transactions were considered for the acquired land. One of those sale transaction in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector is sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 which represents the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani of a land situated at a distance of only 100 meters away from the acquired land. Counsel contends that since in the assessment note it is reflected that land at a distance of 100 meters from the acquired land is rated Rs.10,00,000/- per kani, the LA Collector should not have taken a different course without justifying the same. In the course of his submissions, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the sale instances which have been examined by the government also include sale deed No.1-1303 dated 19.09.2009 which is rated Rs.80,00,000/- per kani. Counsel contends that the government did not consider those deeds on the ground that the land of those deeds are far away from the acquired land but nowhere in the assessment note, distance between those lands and the acquired land has been mentioned. Counsel argues that the sale transaction representing the highest value at the relevant time should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. Counsel has argued that none of these parameters were taken into consideration either by the LA Collector or by the learned LA Judge and therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned LA Judge is completely erroneous which should be set aside.

7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, counsel of the appellants further submits that since the land was in proper shape and well developed, it was acquired for exte