Allowed

Janaki Koch v. State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2025LA.App./1/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six land acquisition appeals challenged inadequate compensation awarded for land acquired for a Dudhnoi-Mendipather railway line. The High Court held the acquired land was bhiti land following a co-ordinate bench decision in Putul Kachari, found genuine sale deeds were wrongly rejected, allowed the appeals, and directed reassessment as bhiti land with solatium and interest within six months.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; Revenue authority directed to assess appellants' land as bhiti land and pay compensation with solatium and interest within 6 months.

Janaki Koch Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/20

GAHC010210212014

2025:GAU-AS:7481

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : LA.App./1/2014

¶6

JANAKI KOCH W/O LT. ROHINI KUMAR KOCH, VILL. DUDHNOI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR, GOALPARA.

¶9

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶10

N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H DAS, MR.H GOGOI,MR. A MANNAF,MD A S ALI,MR. A HOQUE

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A K SARKAR, GA, ASSAM,MR G GOSWAMI (R2, R3),MR. D NATH SR. GOVT, ADV. ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/20

¶14

Linked Case : LA.App./38/2018

¶15

SMTI. PREMESWARI RABHA W/O- SARBANAND RABHA VILL-DUDHNOI REVENUE TOWN PART-I PS-DUDHNOI

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA PO AND PS- JOGIGHOPA -----------Advocate for : MR H DAS Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

¶18

Linked Case : LA.App./3/2014

¶19

DILIP KUMAR RABHA S/O PRAKASH CH. RABHA VILL. THEKASU PART-I P.S. DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM.

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR

¶22

Page No.# 3/20

¶23

GOALPARA

¶24

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶25

N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶26

3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM.

¶27

-----------Advocate for : MR.H DAS Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶28

Linked Case : LA.App./8/2014

¶29

UTTAM RABHA S/O LT. THANESWAR RABHA VILL. THEKASU PART-I P.S. DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM.

¶30

VERSUS

¶31

STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR GOALPARA

¶32

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶33

N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶34

Page No.# 4/20

¶35

3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR.H GOGOI Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶36

Linked Case : LA.App./37/2018

¶37

PRAKASH CHANDRA ROY S/O LATE HARENDRA ROY VILL - THEKASU PART-I P.S. DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM VERSUS

¶38

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR GOALPARA

¶39

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI - 11 P.O. AND P.S. MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA P.O. AND P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR H DAS Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶40

Page No.# 5/20

¶41

Linked Case : LA.App./64/2014

¶42

PUNAM CHAND SARMAH and 2 ORS.

¶43

2: DILIP KR. SARMAH

¶44

3: MOTILAL SARMAH ALL ARE R/O VILL. DUDHNOI REVENUE TOWN PART-I P.S. DUDHNOI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. VERSUS

¶45

STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR GOALPARA

¶46

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 P.O. and P.S. MALIGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶47

3:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CON N.F. RAILWAY JOGIGHOPA P.O. and P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR.H DAS Advocate for : MR B N GOGOI appearing for STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶48

BEFORE

¶49

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶50

Page No.# 6/20

¶51

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2025

¶52

Date of Judgment : 05.06.2025

¶53

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶54

Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Mannaf for the appellants, namely, (i) Janaki Koch in LA Appeal No. 1/2014, (ii) Dilip Kumar Rabha in LA Appeal No. 3/2014, (iii) Uttam Rabha in LA Appeal No. 8/2014, (iv) Punam Chand Sarmah in LA Appeal No. 64/2014, (v) Prakash Chandra Roy in LA Appeal No. 37/2018, and (vi) Premeswari Rabha in LA Appeal No. 38/2018.

¶55

These appeals mentioned above are against a common Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2013, in connection with Misc. L.A. Case No. 19/2010 and other Misc. L.A. cases. The appellants named above are aggrieved with the assessed valuation of their land and the award which is a paltry sum as the appellants are rendered landless. It is submitted that the appellants at present have nowhere to go. They have been paid peanuts and the amount paid for acquisition of land by the Revenue Authority is at present not sufficient for their survival.

¶56

Appellant Janaki Koch was awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,12,400/- along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 1B appertaining to Dag No. 319(Pt)P and Patta No. 304; Appellant Dilip Kumar Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,46,668/along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 4B 7L appertaining to Dag No. 49 and Patta No. 247 of Dudhnoi revenue town;

¶57

Appellant Uttam Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,820/- along

¶58

Page No.# 7/20

¶59

with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 1K 18L appertaining to Dag No. 316 and Patta No. 514;

¶60

Appellant Punam Chand Sarma was awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 2B 7L appertaining to Dag No. 35 and Patta No. 75 of the same revenue village, Dudhnoi revenue town, Pt-1;

¶61

Appellant Prakash Chandra Roy was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 3B 1K 7L appertaining to Dag No. 46 and Patta No. 351; and Appellant Premeswari Rabha was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,90,532/along with 30% solatium and an interest of 12% for a parcel of land admeasuring 4K 13L appertaining to Dag No. 37 and Patta No. 250.

¶62

The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as according to them, the land acquired from them is suitable for business purpose. The appellants earnestly pleaded before the Reference Court that the land so acquired was Bhiti land but the learned Court below failed to consider the same and dismissed the Reference cases considering the same as agricultural land as assessed by the Collector. It is submitted that the appellants plots of land are within the heart of the town and they have their residential houses. The potentiality of the appellants land can be assessed by the sale deeds of the land abutting the appellants land which have been furnished in the Reference cases. While fixing the amount payable as compensation, the Deputy Collector assessed Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha for Bhiti land (residential land) and Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha for agricultural land along with 30% solatium and 12% interest situated at village Dudhnoi, Goalpara, Assam.

¶63

The potentiality factor was however disputed by the respondents. The

¶64

Page No.# 8/20

¶65

respondent No. 1 filed written statement disputing the potentiality factor and emphasising that the land does not come under the description of Bhiti land but falls under the description as ‘Salitoli’ In addition, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, the Railways also filed a written statement taking similar plea as those taken in the case of Bhiti land taken by the Collector.

¶66

Arguments for the Appellants:

¶67

It is contended that the learned District Judge, Goalpara, has committed a serious error by not taking into consideration Exhibit-4, Sale deed No. 277 under DAG No. 37/63 and Khatian No. 102 pertaining to value of land @ Rs. 6 lacs per Bigha, which was the cardinal principle for evaluating the land with the market price, either of the land in question or of similar plot of land adjacent to the land in question (which was also prevailing at the time of publication).

¶68

It is contended that the learned District Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that the Exhibit-4 reflects the market price of the land which is similar to the land acquired by the respondent and ought to have allowed the reference of the aforementioned appellants. It is further averred that the learned District Judge ought to have considered all the three sale deeds marked as Exhibits-2, 3 & 4 with respect to the potential value of the acquired land of the appellants.

¶69

It is contended that the learned District Judge has misconceived the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1975 (1) SCC 158, and has wrongly interpreted the obiter dicta and ratio-decidendi thereof. The learned District Judge has failed to evaluate the correct principles of law and facts by giving weightage to Section 23 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act, 1894 in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is hereby liable to be set aside.

¶70

Page No.# 9/20

¶71

The learned Reference Judge has erred by deciding all the ten cases perfunctorily in one common judgment without considering the different aspects of the matter with respect to their respective reference cases. It is averred that the learned Referral Court has misconceived the settled principles of law as laid down by this Court in one of its leading cases in L.A. Collector Vs. Radhamohan Debnath reported in 1998 (3) GLR 143.

¶72

It has been emphasized that the compensation ought to have been enhanced by the learned District Judge as the award of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara was inadequate. It has been well established by oral and documentary evidence of the appellants that the acquired land in question were of the same nature and value as the land sold vide Exhibit-4 and the learned Reference Court ought to have allowed the higher market value for the land acquired by the respondents. The learned Court has erroneously drawn an inference that the nature of the land acquired is not similar to the land described as per Exhibit-4.

¶73

Arguments for the respondents:

¶74

The learned counsel for the appellants laid stress in his argument that notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on 01.12.2008. The land was taken over on 14.12.2009, and the compensation for acquisition was awarded on 18.12.2009.

¶75

It is contended that the award was prepared solely on the basis of sale deeds of 2002, 2003 & 2004. Three categories of land were acquired, which are as follows:-

¶76

(i) Bhiti land, (ii) Potential and developmental land, and

¶77

Page No.# 10/20

¶78

(iii) Agricultural land.

¶79

It is contended that the appellants were owners of developmental land but were awarded Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation. Only the appellant of L.A. No.64/2014 was awarded an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

¶80

The respondents of all the appeals mentioned above are the State of Assam represented by the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Goalpara; the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon and the Deputy Chief Engineer cum Construction N.F. Railway, Jogighopa. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the possession of the plots of land were taken over on 14.12.2009 for construction of B.G. railway line from Dudhnoi to Mendipather. They have justified fixing and awarding the compensation @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha for the acquired land along with 30% solatium and 12% interest.

¶81

It was pleaded that the classification of land was appropriate and properly classified by the District administration as per available records in their office and after site verification. The plots of land acquired by the respondents are purely agricultural land situated at a paddy field and there was no question of treating those plots of land as bhiti land as claimed by the appellants. The market value of Rs. 30,00,000/- per bigha quoted by the appellants was unreasonable.

¶82

The acquired land was situated on the outskirts of Dudhnoi Revenue town, far away from NH-37 with no approach from the National Highway as well as other roads. There are no Government offices, non-Government entities, educational institutions in close proximity to the acquired land. It was also pleaded that all the plots of land lay about 1.5 kms away from the Dudhnoi Bazaar or Dudhnoi Railway Station.

¶83

Page No.# 11/20

¶84

The topography of the land purchased by one Raja Basumatary may not be similar to that of the acquired land. Furthermore, one single transaction of sale of a plot of land cannot be treated as a guideline for assessment of the market value. The remaining part of the argument for both the sides will be discussed at the appropriate stage.

¶85

Findings:

¶86

The genesis of the case was that the Deputy Collector, Goalpara, acquired the respective plots of land of the appellants for construction of railway line from Dudhnoi to Mendipather at Dudhnoi Revenue, PT-1. According to the appellants, the plots of land acquired were suitable for business purposes. There is a PWD road in front of the land adjacent to the acquired plots of land with dwelling houses standing thereon. The District administration acquired the land on behalf of the Railway department for construction of railway track. It is submitted that the land of Kausalya Rabha was acquired as ‘Bhiti’ land and a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- was assessed and awarded to Kausalya Rabha. It is further submitted that the nature of the land of the appellants is similar to that of the land acquired by the respondents from Kausalya Rabha and the appellant's land falls under the same category.

¶87

It was further pleaded by the appellants that a person named Raja Basumatary purchased a plot of land @ Rs.30,00,000/- per bigha and thus the appellants are entitled to a similar compensation. It was further pleaded that the acquired plots of land are situated adjacent to NH-37 in the heart of Dudhnoi Revenue Town with various institutions, Government offices, hotels, motor garages, Dudhnoi Bazaar, Dudhnoi P.S. and Dudhnoi chariali flanking the acquired land (appellant’s land).

¶88

Page No.# 12/20

¶89

I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

¶90

The witnesses have stated about the adjacent National highway, schools, offices and hospital, which was clearly ignored by the learned District Judge. The D.C. has assessed the valuation on the basis of sale deeds of 2003 & 2004 for the year 2009. All the appellants are poor and landless people and with the bare minimum compensation, the appellants are in dire straits. The assessment ought to have been based on sale deeds of similar category of land in the neighbourhood.

¶91

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the assessment cannot be based on guesswork. There are certain specifications based on which the award has to be assessed and the learned District Judge has correctly dismissed the reference preferred by the appellants.

¶92

The learned District Judge framed the following issues while deciding the reference:-

¶93

“1) Has the petitioner any cause of action for the suit?

¶94

Is the Suit barred by limitation?

¶95

Whether the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is inadequate in view of present market price of the acquired land?

¶96

What will be the just and proper compensation payable to the petitioners?

¶97

To what relief, the petitioners are entitled? “

¶98

On perusal of the evidence, it is noticed that the appellant as well as the

¶99

Page No.# 13/20

¶100

respective witnesses in the aforementioned reference cases stood by the pleadings deposing that the land so acquired are bhiti land. As a proceeding before the reference Court is at par to a proceeding of a regular suit, the evidence as well as the pleadings are to be considered. The respondents failed to refute the pleadings of the appellants substantiated by the evidence that the plots of land so acquired by the respondent are not ‘bhiti land’.

¶101

In Misc. LA case No. 19/2010, (LA Appeal No. 01/2014) Smt. Junaki Koch deposed as PW-1, in the reference proceeding.

¶102

In Misc. LA Case No. 01/2010, (LA Appeal No. 03/2014) Shri Dilip Kumar Rabha deposed as PW-1, Shri Raja Basumatary deposed as PW-2, Shri Tapan Kumar Dey deposed as PW-3 and Shri Ratan Kumar Ghosh deposed as PW- 4.

¶103

In Misc. LA Case No. 17/2010, (LA Appeal No. 08/2014) Shri Uttam Rabha adduced his evidence in chief through his affidavit in the original case. In Misc. LA Case No. 26/10, (LA Appeal No. 64/2014) the appellant adduced the evidence of Shri Motilal Sharma as PW-1 to substantiate his pleadings.

¶104

In Misc. LA Case No. 02/10, (LA Appeal No. 37/2018) the appellant adduced his evidence in affidavit as PW-1, in support of his pleadings, and

¶105

In Misc. LA Case No. 18/10, (LA Appeal No. 38/2018) the appellant adduced her evidence in chief through affidavit as PW-1.

¶106

As the documentary evidence marked as Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 were taken into consideration in connection with all the 10 cases while deciding the same through the impugned common judgment, the Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 are relevant to this appeals.

¶107

It is submitted that an analogous Appeal No. 63/2014 and other appeals vide order dated 25.07.2018, have already been disposed of by this Court which

¶108

Page No.# 14/20

¶109

has been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment and order dated 29.06.2013 which i.e., Misc. LA Case No. 20/10 and other reference cases. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has held that the land acquired falls under the classification of bhiti land and thereby the value of the land was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha to Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha. 28. Learned Government Advocate has submitted the information sought by this Court in connection to these appeals. The information was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara on 25.06.2024 and Annexure-A is the report in detail relating to the land acquired in connection with these appeals at hand. The extract of the information is reproduced here in below:-

¶110

A. Details of Acquired land, class, area and approved market value for LA compensation:

¶111

Sl.No.	Petitioner Name	Order dated	LA Ref. Case No.	Dag No.	Patta No.	Area of acquisition (B-K-L)	Class of land	Revenue Village	Date of Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894	Market value approved/per Bigha	LA Appeal No.
1	Prakash	29/06/2013	02/10	46	351	3-1-7	Salitoli	Dudhnoi Revenue	01/12/08	2,20,000.00	37/2018
	Chand Ray							Town Pt-1
2	Uttam Rabha	29/06/2013	17/10	316	514	0-1-0	Saitoli	Dudhnoi Revenue	01/12/08	2,20,000.00	08/2014
				321	--	0-0-18	(Roadside) Salitoli	Town Pt-1		1,50,000.00
3	Smti	29/06/2013	18/10	37	250	0-4-13	Salitoli	Dudhnoi Revenue	01/12/08	2,20,000.00	38/2018
	Premeswari Rabha							Town Pt-1
4	Janaki Koch	29/06/2013	19/10	319	304	1-0-0	Salitoli	Dudhnoi Revenue	01/12/08	2,20,000.00	01/2014
								Town Pt-1
5	Punachand Sarmah	31/07/2013	26/10	35	75	2-0-7	Bari	Dudhnoi Revenue Town Pt-1	01/12/08	5,50,000.00	64/2014

¶112

B. Details of sale deeds received & land value of that relevant of time i.e. 01.12.20028 (Date of Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894):

¶113

Sl.No.	Date	Village	Sale Deed No.	Class of land	DagNo.	Patta No.	Area (B-K-L)	Value as per Sale Deed	Calculated value per Bigha	Remarks
1	27.10.2008	Dudhnoi Rajah Sahar Pt-1	1592/1469	Bari	1030	292	0-2-0	1,04,000.00	2,60,000.00
2	10.11.2008	Dudhnoi	1647/1489	Bari	315	312	0-0-10	3,00,000.00	30,00,000.00	Value seems to be comparatively
		Rajah Sahar Pt-1								high. Sale Deeds executed just before the date of Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶114

Page No.# 15/20

¶115

3	20.11.2008	Dudhnoi Rajah Sahar Pt-1	1690/1529	Bari	795/297	769	0-0-10	30,000.00	3,00,000.00
4	28.11.2008	Dudhnoi	1725/1562	Bari	107	64	0-2-10	1,00,00.00	2,00,000.00
		Rajah Sahar Pt-1
5	19.05.2008	Dudhnoi	877/827	Salitoli	427	482	1-1-12	90,000.00	68,182.00
		Rajah Sahar Pt-1
6	16.07.2008	Dudhnoi	1199/1114	Salitoli	337	254	3-0-0	6,00,000.00	2,00,000.00
		Rajah Sahar Pt-1
7	26.11.2008	Dighli	1712/1550	Salitoli	426	194	0-1-5	50,000.00	2,00,000.00	Land of nearbyvillage

¶116

The date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was 01.12.2008 and the date of award was 18.12.2009 and possession was already acquired by the respondents on 14.12.2009. The awards were prepared on the basis of sale deeds of 2002, 2003 & 2004, from the appellants as the details of the sale deeds received and land valuation at the relevant point of time i.e., 01.12.2008 was notably higher to the sale deeds on the basis if which the plots of land were evaluated and assessed.

¶117

In connection with Misc. LA Case No. 01/2010, connected LA Appeal No. 03/2014, while adducing evidence, the petitioner/appellant has exhibited certain documents. The witness Raja Basumatary has proved Exhibit-2 as sale deed No. 1647/1489. His witness Ratan Kumar Ghosh has also proved his sale deed number 277 dated 23.01.1985 as Exhibit-4.

¶118

Learned counsel for the appellants has laid stress in his argument that while assessing the valuation of the land, the learned Deputy Commissioner has ignored the exhibited sale deeds. While deciding the appeal, the District Judge also fell into error by ignoring the sale deed marked as Exhibit-4. As this sale deed is relating to land adjacent to the land of the appellant Dilip Kumar Rabha and the other appellants, the assessment ought to have been based on this sale deed which clearly reflects that the land pertains to Dag No. 37/63 of Khatian

¶119

Page No.# 16/20

¶120

No. 102 and the valuation of the land was 6 lacs per bigha. 32. On the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner's report reveals that the land pertaining to sale deed No. 1647/1489 was executed on 10.11.2008, immediately before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the value was exorbitantly high being valued at Rs. 30 lacs per bigha. The respondents have argued on this aspect relating to the execution of the deed immediately before the acquisition of the land.

¶121

Another witness of the appellant Shi Dilip Kumar Rabha, Shi Tapan Kumar Dey exhibited sale deed No. 336/315 dated 23.02.2009 marked as Exhibit-3, but this sale deed was executed after 01.12.2008. It is evident that the plots of land in connection with this appeal falls under the revenue village of Dudhnoi Revenue town, Part-1. The report clearly reveals that the market value of salitoli land was estimated at Rs. 2,20,000/- and the market value of agricultural land was Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellant Punamchand Sharma in LA Appeal No. 64/14 has already been awarded an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- in connection with Misc. LA case No. 26/10.

¶122

After considering the submissions at the bar and after scrutinizing the trial court records, it is discernible that the plots of land were acquired from a particular area for construction of a railway line stretching Dudhnoi to Mendipather. This area falls under the revenue village of Dudhnoi Revenue town Part-1. It is but obvious that the plots of land will be adjacent to each other. The District Commissioner, Goalpara has forwarded the details of acquired land, class area and approved market value for land acquisition compensation of Prakash Chandra Roy, appellant in connection with LA No. 37/018 arising out of Misc. LA Case No. 02/2010, Uttam Rabha who has preferred LA No. 8/2018 arising out of Misc. LA Case No.

¶123

Page No.# 17/20

¶124

17/2010,

¶125

Premeswari Rabha who has preferred the LA land Appeal No. 38/2018 arising out of Misc. LA case No. 18/2010,

¶126

Junaki Koch who has preferred the land appeal No. 1/2014 arising out of Misc. land acquisition case No. 19/2010 and

¶127

Punam Chand Sarmah who has preferred land appeal No. 38/2018 arising out of Misc. LA case No. 18/2010.

¶128

The land of the appellants are classified as salitoli land but the land of Punam Chand Sarmah is classified as bari land or bhiti land. Salitoli land is agricultural land. It is noticeable that the classification of land of Dilip Kumar Rabha who has preferred LA No. 3/2014 arising out of Misc. LA case No. 1/2010 has not been forwarded. The salitoli land was evaluated Rs. 2,20,000/- as per the aforementioned report in favour of Uttam Rabha as the land is described as salitoli roadside land. The other part of the salitoli land of Uttam Rabha was evaluated @ Rs. 1,50,000/-. The land of the other appellants except Dilip Kumar Rabha was evaluated @ Rs. 2,20,000/- despite being described as salitoli land. 36. It has been held by a coordinate bench of this court in connection with LA case No. 63/2014, and other appeals that it would not be out of place to mention here that “admittedly there was bhiti land which were acquired and for the said reason there were two classified award, one for bhiti land which is Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha and Rs. 1,50,000/- per bigha for agricultural land.” 37. It is also apparent from the report of the Deputy Commissioner that although the other plots of land does not fall under the category of salitoli road side but the lands are described as simple salitoli land, and the same amount of compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been awarded to the appellants.

¶129

Page No.# 18/20

¶130

I would not like to disagree with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court relied upon by the Railways in connection with L.A. Appeal No. 63/2014 and other appeals in case of Putul Kachari and 2 Ors, wherein vide order dated 25.07.2018, it has been observed that:-

¶131

“ It would not be out of place to mention here that admittedly there was Bhiti land which were acquired and for the said reason there were two classified award, one for Bhiti land which is Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha and Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha for agricultural land. The learned court below held that the appellants failed to prove their respective cases on preponderance of probability. But the learned court below ought to have taken into consideration that Bhiti land was also acquired which can very well be prepondered from the rate of assessment of Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha for Bhiti land. For the said reason I am unable to accept the findings of the learned reference court inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants are to be read as whole and on such reading the appellants are able to show that the land fell within the Bhiti classification. Accordingly I am constrained to hold that the land acquired falls under the classification of Bhiti land thereby enhancing the value of the same to Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha, the rate of assessment of Bhiti land by the competent authority. “

¶132

Reverting back to this case, it is held that an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha was awarded as compensation for Salitoli land.

¶133

Relying on the decision of this Court in Putul Kachari(Supra), it is hereby held that the land of the appellants also falls under the Bhiti land and after assessing the valuation of the land of the appellants as Bhiti land, the compensation is to be awarded to the appellants. It has to be borne in mind that the report forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara on 25.06.2024 has evaluated the lands in this appeal as salitoli land @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha. The appellants have produced evidence at the stage of the reference proceeding. Several sale deeds have been proved by the appellants and this Court vide order dated 03.09.2019, asked the learned Additional Senior

¶134

Page No.# 19/20

¶135

Government Advocate to produce original record of Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4’s sale deeds along with the information from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Goalpara, if there was any sale deed of similar nature in and around the same time when the Exhibits- 2, 3 & 4 were executed.

¶136

The order dated 12.09.2019 of this Court in connection with these appeals reflects that information was provided by the Revenue Department that Exhibits2, 3 & 4 are genuine and acceptable sale deeds.

¶137

Thus, the Learned Court has erred while rejecting the valuation of the land indicated in the three sale deeds by expressing a view that the sales had taken place in the proximate past when acquisition of the land was being made. As these sale deeds are genuine sale deeds, they ought not to have been rejected by the court. The evidence has to be analyzed as a whole. Sale deeds of land near the acquired land proximate to the time of acquisition has to be considered.

¶138

This court vide order dated 12.09.2019, again asked the Revenue Authority to provide some sale deeds of the relevant point of time regarding the same class of land as that of the acquired land so as to arrive at a prima facie conclusion qua the valuation of the land at that point of time. Acting on the order of this court, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the aforementioned report and certified copies of sale deeds of adjacent lands vide memo No. 1-34/SRO/GLP Goalpara dated 21.06.2024 and letter No. GRQ 02/2008/248 dated 25.06.2024, which report has been specifically described in the foregoing discussions.

¶139

Although it is submitted that the plots of land of the appellants falls under the category of Salitoli land, it has already been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar appeals arising out of the same cause of action that the plots of land of the present appellants and the neighbours whose land have

¶140

Page No.# 20/20

¶141

been acquired fall under the Bhiti category of land. The L.A. appeals 63/2014 are disposed of by this Court arising out of the same cause of action i.e., arising out of a common judgment and order dated 29.06.2013 in L.A. Case No. 20,27 and other cases.

¶142

It will be apt to reiterate that a proceeding of this nature is at par with a civil suit and the evidence adduced by the parties has to be assessed on the preponderance of probability. Here as discussed above, in this case, the appellants have already adduced evidence whereas the respondents have submitted report without substantiating evidence. Rather they have supported the respondents evidence by affirming that the sale deeds marked as Exhibits2, 3 & 4 are genuine and acceptable sale deeds.

¶143

Thereby, the appeals are allowed with a direction to the Revenue authority to assess the appellants land properly as Bhiti land and not salitoli land, and pay the solatium along with the rate of interest.

¶144

The entire process of assessment and the payment of award is to be completed within 6 months from the date of this order.

¶145

JUDGE

¶146

Comparing Assistant

Janaki Koch v. State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki Koch v. State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Paul and 3 Ors. Vs Sonam Dey Paul

Sajesh Patwari Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Satyajit Borah Vs the State of Assam

Dilip Kumar Rabha Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Punam Chand Sarmah and 2 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Shri K K Yangfo and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)