SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Tri) 51

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
 
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction -2), N.F. Railway, Badharghat, Agartala – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Minati Das, Wife of Late Dhirendra Ch. Das and Ors. – Respondents
LA.App. No. 100 of 2023 With CO(FA) No. 01 of 2024
Decided On : 30-01-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy.SGI.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Kr. Deb, Sr. Advocate., Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.

Proper evidence and justification are essential for determining compensation in land acquisition cases, particularly regarding ownership and damages for destroyed property.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 26, 29, 60(2), 69(3), and 72 - Appeal against compensation awarded for land acquisition - The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani, applying a multiplication factor of 1.5 and awarding solatium and interest - The appellant contended that the assessment was inadequate and lacked proper justification. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Compensation Assessment - The court emphasized the necessity of proper evidence and justification for compensation awarded, particularly regarding ownership and the value of rubber trees destroyed during acquisition - The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to determine ownership and appropriate compensation. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The respondents owned land acquired for railway construction, with the LA Collector initially awarding Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani, which was later enhanced by the Authority. The respondents claimed inadequate compensation and sought a higher amount based on market value.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court failed to frame issues regarding ownership and compensation for rubber trees, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.

Issues: The main issues were whether the assessed value of the acquired land was inadequate and whether the referring claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that proper evidence and issues regarding ownership must be established before determining compensation, emphasizing that unauthorized occupants cannot claim benefits.

Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the appellant in LA. App No. 100 of 2023 as well as for the respondent in CO(FA) 01 of 2024 . Also heard Mr. S. Kr. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimants (respondents herein) in LA. App No. 100 of 2023 and for the Cross-Objectors in CO(FA) 01 of 2024.

[2] This present appeal has been filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the Judgment and Award dated 30.01.2023 passed in L.A Case 71 of 2019 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tripura along with this appeal a Cross-Objection has also been filed by the Cross –Objector (Respondents herein) under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re- Settlement Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30.01.2023 passed in the LA Case No. 71 of 2019 by the aforesaid authority. Hence, both the appeals are taken together for a common disposal.

[3] The brief facts of the case is that, the referring claimants (respondents herein) Smt. Minati Das and her husband Late Dhirendra Ch. Das were the owner and possessor of land under Khatian No. 2025, plot No. 6025/6433/p in Mauja Sarashima under Belonia Sub-division, Dhirendra Ch. Das died on 05.04.2013 and on his death his son and daughters became the owner of the land along with their mother. The Government acquired the land measuring 0.70 acres owned by the referring claimants (respondents herein) under aforesaid Khatian No. 2025, plot No. 6025/6433/p for construction of new Railway line vide notification No. F.09 (01)/REV/ACQ/XII/15 dated 3.08.2015. The LA Collector, South Tripura determined the market value of acquired land @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani and to arrive the land value of acquired land applied multiplication factor 1.5, cost of damage of trees on the land and also awarded 100% solatium over the total compensation and 12% interest w.e.f. 03.08.2015 to 02.03.2016 (for 7 months). That, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the LA Collector the respondents herein (claimants) sought for reference. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tripura for determination of appropriate compensation. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tripura by its judgment and award dated 30.01.2023 enhanced the award passed by the LA Collector and assessed the value @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani. The relevant portion of the Judgment and Award dated 30.01.2023 passed in LA Case No. 71 of 2019 is quoted herein below:-

ORDER / AWARD

16. (1) The Referring Claimant is entitled enhanced market value of her acquired land measuring 0.70 acres under plot Nos. 6025/6433/p@ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani (ii)The market value of the acquired land as determined at the above rate be multiplied with factor ’1.5’ as per section 26 (c) and as contemplated in First schedule appended to Act 2013 to get the value of the land (iii) The referring claimant in addition to value of land is entitled to get compensation u/s. 29 of Act 2013 for 100 rubber trees amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/-(Rs.4500x100) (iv) The referring claimant as per section 69(3) of the Act 2013, in addition to the market value of the land is entitled 100% solatium over the total (value of the land cost for damage for 100 rubber trees) compensation The referring claimants as per section 60(2) of Act 2013, is entitled 12 p.a. on the market value from the date of publication of notification under section 11 to the date of award of the LA Collector or taking of the possession of acquired property, which-ever is earlier. (vi) The referring claimants u/s. 72 of Act 2013 is entitled for interest at the rate of 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top