The court held that when determining land compensation, reliance should be on relevant and comparable sale deeds that accurately reflect market value.

JUDGMENT

T.AMARNATH GOUD,J. - Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- N.F. Railway. Also heard Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-claimant.

2. This appeal under Sec. 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the award dtd. 22/1/2020 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 37 of 2014 whereby he assessed the value of the land of the claimant at Rs.12,02,688.00 per kani with all other consequential benefits.

3. Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Admit this appeal;

(ii) Call for records of Misc. (L.A) 37 of 2014 from the Court of Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma);

(iii) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and award dtd. 22/1/2020 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh (Sri A. Debbarma), in connection with Misc. (L.A.) 37 of 2014;

(v) Any other relief and relives as your Lordship deem fit and proper having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The undisputed facts are that land measuring 0.47 acres appertaining to plot Nos.3611 and 3612 of Khatian No.2024 under Mouja-South Charilam of Bishalgarh Sub-Division of the claimant was acquired by the L.A. Collector vide Notification dtd. 15/10/2009 for the purpose of construction of "New Rail line" from Agartala to Sabroom and compensation of Rs.1,04,561.00 per kani was awarded for the acquired land. Being dissatisfied, the claimant filed claim statement being Misc. (L.A.) 37 of 2014 before the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000.00 per kani for the acquired land and the learned L.A. Judge after recording evidence and hearing arguments was pleased to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,04,561.00 per kani to Rs.12,02,688.00 per kani vide award dtd. 22/1/2020. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-N.F. Railway has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned L.A. Judge. Hence, this case.

5. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-N.F. Railway, submits before this Court that the notification was issued in the year 2009 and the Court below has relied upon the sale deed bearing No.1-143 dtd. 21/2/2014 (Exhibit-2). The subject property in the sale deed of 2014 is a developed property and the property which is notified for acquisition is an agricultural land and the price would be much less. In this scenario, the sale deed No.1-261 dtd. 6/2/2009 (Exhibit-3) ought to have been considered.

This Court finds force in the argument of Mr. A. De, learned counsel for the appellant.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-claimant, in all fairness, agrees to the said argument and contends that the Court below ought to have considered the sale deed of 2009.

7. In view of the above, both the counsels together have given a calculation sheet which is agreed by both sides and the same is as under:

"CALCULATION SHEET

As per judgment dated 22/01/2020 passed in Misc. (LA) 37/2014.

A) Date of notification -15/10/2009

As per Exhibit-2 deed no.1-143 of 2014 dated 21/02/2014 rate of the land @ Rate of Rs.60,13,440/- per kani-80% =Rs.12,02,688/-

Quantum of land acquired is 0.47 acres

Compensation comes to Rs.14,13,158.4/-

(0.40 acres-Rs.12,02,688/-

+ 0.07 acres-Rs.2,10,470/-)

Total-Rs.14,13,158.4/-

B) As per Exhibit-3 deed no.1-261 of 2009 dtd. 06/02/2009 rate of the land is @ rate of Rs.11,66,667.00 Pe