L.A. App. No. 56 of 2007. Case: Smt. Kiran Bala Paul Vs Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala. Tripura High Court
| Case Number | L.A. App. No. 56 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R. Chakraborty, Adv. and For Respondents: A. Lodh, Adv. |
| Judges | U. B. Saha, J. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) - Sections 23, 18 |
| Citation | AIR 2014 Tri 7 |
| Judgement Date | October 07, 2013 |
| Court | Tripura High Court |
Judgment:
-
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the claimant-petitioner, against the judgment dated 24-1-2007 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (L.A.) No. 59 of 1999, whereby the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala (for short 'the L.A. Collector') to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani for the acquired land measuring 0.85 acres together with solatium and usual interest as per the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').
-
Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant as well as Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-N.F. Railway. None appears for the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector.
-
The respondent-State by way of issuing a Notification dated 19-11-1997 under Section 4 of the Act, acquired an area of land measuring 55.75 acres for the construction of railway lines from Kumarghat to Agartala, out of which, land measuring 0.85 acres of the claimant-appellant situated at Mouja-Badharghat was also acquired. The L.A. Collector-respondent No. 1 assessed the market value of the acquired land of the claimant-appellant @ Rs. 1,06,000/- per kani. The claimant-appellant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the L.A. Collector claimed for enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani, besides other statutory benefits by way of preferring an application under Section 18 of the Act. The L.A. Collector referred the aforesaid application under Section 18 of the Act to the L.A. Judge and on receipt of the reference, the L.A. Judge (hereinafter referred to 'the reference Court') registered the said reference as Misc. (LA) No. 59 of 1999.
-
The L.A. Collector and the N.F. Railway resisted the claim of the claimant-appellant by filing their respective counter statement stating inter alia that the contentions of the claimant-appellant in her petition are not correct and that the compensation awarded in her favour is just, proper and adequate. Thus, the claim of the claimant-appellant should be liable to be dismissed.
-
In support of their respective claim, the parties have examined one witness each in favour of them. The claimant-appellant as well as the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector in support of their case has also produced some exhibited documents, which are marked as Exbt. 1 series, 2 series, 3 series and Exbt.- 'A' series to 'C' series respectively. The question arose before the reference Court was as to whether the compensation awarded for the acquired land by the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector is just and reasonable as required under Section 23 of the Act.
-
The learned reference Court considering the evidence as well as documents produced and exhibited by the parties and taking note of rapid upward trend in price of land assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani, i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre in his judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimant-appellant preferred the instant appeal for further enhancement of the market value of the acquired land.
-
The grounds taken by the claimant-appellant for enhacement are: (i) the learned reference Court failed to determine the proper compensation of the acquired land as well as the trees standing thereon; (ii) the learned reference Court though determined the market value and passed the impugned award, but did not pass any award for the value of the trees standing on the acquired land as the respondent No. I-L.A. Collector was not given any information regarding the trees standing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition though there were more or less 10,000 different types of trees.
-
The claimant-appellant in support of her case has produced and exhibited the sale deeds dated 4-8-1997, 30-7-1997 and 25-7-1997, which are marked as Exbt. 1 series, 2 series and 3 series respectively. But the claimant-appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the nature, type and potentiality of the lands under Exbt.-1 series to 3 series are to be comparable with the acquired land and is in the close vicinity of the land acquired in the instant case and, therefore, the rate as shown in those sale deeds did not rely upon by the learned reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land. Whereas the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector in his counter statement specifically stated that the land in question was not utilized as "Dokan Vity" as mentioned by the claimant-appellant and the same is also not situated adjacent to the Siddi Ashram main road. It is also stated that the assessment was made properly for the land and trees and at the time of hearing under Section 11 of the Act no documentary evidence was produced before the respondent-L.A. Collector in support of her claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani. Further case of the respondent-L.A. Collector before the learned reference Court was that 41 numbers of sale instances were produced by the different claimant-petitioners, whose lands were acquired for the railway project at the time of hearing under Section 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial