Appeal against Land Acquisition Judge's award. Court allowed appeal, fixing land rate at 45 lakhs per kani due to unexplained deduction and ignored development factors.
Land rate fixed at Rs. 45,00,000 per kani; respondents directed to determine total compensation under Section 23 with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA LA APP.NO.36 OF 2014
Sri Rabindra Chandra Das
son of late Tufani Das
of village Siddhi Ashram(Kalimata) P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S. Amtali District: West Tripura
………… Appellant
- Vs –
1. The Land Acquisition Collector West Tripura, Agartala O/O the District Magistrate & Collector West Tripura District
2. The Executive Engineer
Agartala Division No.V, Agartala District: West Tripura
………… Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the appellant : Mr. Raju Dutta, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of : 03.11.2017 judgment and order Whether Fit for Reporting : Yes No √
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. Raju Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Page 1 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
2. This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and award dated 21.05.2014 delivered in case No.Misc.(LA) 147/2012 by the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the determination of the land rate. The Land Acquisition Collector has determined the rate for the acquired land at 24,00,000/- per kani, whereas the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the land rate at 30,00,000/- per kani. The referring claimant, the land loser is not satisfied with the said determination. Hence, he has approached this Court by filing this appeal.
4. There is no controversy in respect of the basic facts involved in this appeal that for purpose of construction of the approach road leading to Agartala Railway station from NH44[Siddhi Ashram to Agartala] by notification under No.F.9(11)REV-ACQ/XIV/08 dated 29.08.2008 under Section 4 of the said Act, followed by the declaration under even number dated 15.01.2009 under Section 6 of the said Act, the land pertaining to Mouja Badharghat, Sheet No.5/3, Tehsil Bishalgarh, Khatian No.13967, Plot No.29980/P and belonging to the appellant has been acquired.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act following the process had determined the said rate for the acquired land at `24,00,000/- per kani.
Page 2 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
6. In the reference proceeding, the respondents produced the assessment sheet and the material documents based on which the said rate was derived by the Land Acquisition Collector.
The Land Acquisition Collector had considered as many as 4 sale deeds of the same sheet No.5/3 for having a reasonable rate to award the compensation for the said compulsory acquisition. Out of the considered sale deeds, highest price per kani was 8,00,000/-. The sale deeds which were considered are the Sale Deed No.1-12548 dated 21.11.2006, the Sale Deed No.1-7948 dated 29.11.2007, the Sale Deed No.1-74 dated 04.01.2008 and the Sale Deed No.1-166 dated 08.01.2008. The sale deed No.1-48 dated 04.01.2008 contained the land value at 2,00,000/- which was converted into the rate per kani or acre. It came to 8,00,000/- per kani. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector has considered the other factors, such as advantage, potential of development etc. He has also considered the land valuation chart for the sheet No.5 which provided the rate for the _nal_ classes of land at 20,00,000/-, for bastu class of land 15,00,000/-, for _tilla_ class of land 12,00,000/- and for others `10,00,000/-. Finally, on considering the all these materials in hand he segmented the acquired land into three parts, near road, near market and near NH-44. He has observed in his assessment note as follows:
“It is pertinent to mention here that land located next to the present stretch along the southern edge of the same road has already been acquired recently under L.A. proceeding no.4/BLG/09 for same purpose. After careful consideration of the relevant documents, the
Page 3 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
rates of different classes of land were assessed, detail of which have given below:-
| Sl. No. | Classification of land |
Valuation of land P.K. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bastu(Tilla), Viti(tilla), Dokan(tilla), Bastu |
Rs.22,00,000/- |
| 2 | Tilla | Rs.18,00,000/- |
On the other hand the rate of valuation of land in L.A. proceeding no.7/BLG/09 comprising the Siddhi Ashram market area has been determined as below:-
| Sl. | Classification of land | Valuation of land |
|---|---|---|
| No. | P.K. | |
| 1 | Dokan(tilla), Viti(tilla), Viti, | Rs.32,00,000/- |
| Post office and Bastu(tilla) |
”
It has been stated that the class of land being Dokan(tilla), Viti(tilla), Viti, Post Office, Bastu(tilla), was valued at `32,00,000/- per kani.
7. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Judge has identified the various plots under the said three categories and the land of the appellant viz. plot No.22980 fell under the classification of land Viti(tilla), Bastu(tilla), Dokan(tilla) and Bagan(tilla) . Finally, the land valuation as determined is at 24,00,000/- per kani. But no reason, as it apparent, was given for deduction of a substantial sum from 32,00,000/- to fix the value of the land at `24,00,000/- per kani.
8. Being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector the appellant pressed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said reference has been answered by
the impugned judgment and award dated 21.05.2017. As stated
Page 4 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
earlier, the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the rate to `30,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land of the appellant.
9. Mr. Raju Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the referring claimant placed reliance on the sale deed No.1-3368 which shows the consideration money at 1,00,000/- for a land measuring 1 kranta 9 dhurs(local measure) approximately 105 sq. feet. If the said rate is converted for a kani of land, it will come to 1,60,00,000/-. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that no reason whatsoever has been provided by the Land Acquisition Judge for discarding the said the comparable sale exemplar. He has submitted that the land situate in a commercial area. It would fetch much more value for its advantage and in the accelerating rate of development. Being positioned in an area which is situated nearby the important hospitals, ONGC HQs, etc., its value in comparison would be higher. Those aspects were not even considered. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has further submitted that mechanically, the judgment and award dated 30.04.2014 delivered in Misc.(LA) 115/2012 in respect of the land which was the part of the same notification has been applied in the present case without considering that in the commercial area a little bit of advantage makes the land more dearer and it fetches far more consideration money. Finally, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 where the Apex Court has innovated a principle for determining the land rate. The relevant part reads as under:
Page 5 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
“15) It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale-deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale-deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.”
[Emphasis added]
10. From the other side, Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has at the outset submitted that the sale exemplar(Exbt.1) cannot be relied because the said transaction had taken place just a month and half before the acquisition. The factum of acquisition was already known to the referring claimant and as such for a very smaller amount of land measuring 105 sq. feet were sold to one Dipak Sarkar. This is not a bona fide sale transaction which can be relied for purpose of determining the value of the land. That apart, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the land rate as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge as he has uniformly awarded the rate as was awarded in a separate reference out of the same notification. The uniformity is the basis of just and consistent assessment. For this purpose, Mr. Dutta has referred to this Court the paragraph of the LA APP NO.36 OF 2014 Page 6 of 12
judgment dated 30.04.2014 which has been extensively relied by the Land Acquisition Judge. For purpose of reference, the said passage is extracted hereunder:
“8.The sole sale deed proved by the claimant relates to a land measuring 105 square feet only for ` .1,00,000/- whereas the quantum of land acquired was 0.12 acre. So, it cannot be termed as good sale instance because such small piece of land is purchased by a party for specific purpose, mostly commercial for which a consideration money is often paid.
Of the four sale deeds proved from the side of the OP, rate per kani in two sale deeds was **_.8,00,000/and the transaction dates were 29.11.2007 and 04.01.2008 . In the 3rd sale deed, rate per kani was_** .4,00,000/- and the date of transaction was 21.11.2006. In the 4th sale deed, the rate per kani was **_.7,11,112/and the date of transaction was 08.01.2008. The class of land in all the sale deeds is almost similar being bastu, ( bastu tilla ), viti and viti(tilla) . From these sale instances it is evident that the trend of price escalation is double of the original price after about a year. The notification u/s 4 of the Act being made on 29.08.2008 , in consideration of the sale instances proved in the case, fixation of market value of the acquired land at the rate of_** .24,00,000/- per kani does not appear to be grossly inadequate and improper. However, considering the strategic location of the acquired land, expansion of the Agartala town in that direction particularly after it was being in the news that the Agartala would soon be connected by railway and quantum jump of prices of land through out the State, in my opinion the market value of the acquired land ought to have been fixed at some higher rate. This is because, as the very term acquisition signifies, the claimant is compelled to part with the land. It, however, also needs mention here that exhibit-2, the property tax receipt of Agartala Municipal Council in the
Page 7 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
name of Sri Mantu Debnath, the assessee itself, does not prove the precise location of the property. So, it is not proved that the acquired land was within the Agartala Municipal Council area on the date of acquisition. Taking all these factors into consideration, fixation of market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` .30,00,000/per kani is considered justified and the market value is fixed accordingly.”
11. Even thereafter as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel has pointed out that on the basis of that analogy the land rate was enhanced to 30,00,000/- per kani from 24,00,000/- what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.
12. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel has referred a decision of this Court in State of Tripura & Ors. v. Thaikhai Mog Chowdhury & Anr. [judgment and order dated 12.06.2014 delivered in L.A. App. No.22 of 2008] where this Court had occasion to hold that a transaction between father and the son taken place just on immediate proximity of the acquisition is not trustworthy. For this purpose, the relevant part is also reproduced hereunder:
“There is a presumption under the Evidence Act that Government acts in accordance with law. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption but the onus shifts to the other side to rebut the presumption. A sale deed which is entered into between father and son for a very small area entered into after acquisition proceeding have started by which the land of the son has been acquired on the face will have to be presumed to be collusive unless father and son show the reason why the sale deed should be relied upon.”
Page 8 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
The said judgment does not lay down any law. However, the needle of suspicion always pointed to the transactions which are close to the acquisition.
13. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel has referred a decision of the Apex Court in Ravinder Narain v. Union of India reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1491 where the Apex Court has strictly observed that the land value of a larger tract of land and smaller tract of land cannot be compared.
In Ravinder Narain (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the law in order to reduce the element of speculation. Certain principles for fixation of the land value having regard to the comparable sales are proposed there viz.
These are the parameters which can be taken into consideration for appreciating and relying the said exemplars.
14. Further, Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel has relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi reported in AIR 2004 SC 1800 where the Apex Court had occasion to observe as under:
“5. We have heard the parties. In our view, the High Court was absolutely wrong in excluding the 2 sale
Page 9 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
instances cited by the Appellants. The High Court omitted to notice that the offer of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha had not been accepted by the Claimants. In any event the offer was for Rs. 80,000/- per bigha as a consolidated amount. The Appellants would not then have to pay the solatium and interest amounts. We are told, and it is not disputed that the figure of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha would, if solatium and interest is deducted, have gone down to less than Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. In our view the approach of the Reference Court was correct. As all sale instances were proved, they were all to be taken into consideration. If all the sale instances are taken into consideration the average would work out to Rs. 1,11,660/- per bigha. But as all the sale instances are of small pieces of lands and the acquisition is of the large piece of land, a deduction of 33-1/3% must be made towards development cost. Thus the compensation would work out to Rs. 74,444/- per bigha.”
15. In Bharat S. Negi (supra), what the Apex Court has provided is that the average would be worked out and that would be the land rate. But that method has been discarded by subsequent decisions of the Apex Court including the decision as rendered in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra). Therefore, the principle as laid down in Bharat S. Negi (supra) is of no help for appreciating the ground of objection as raised by the appellant.
16. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the solitary point that falls for consideration is whether the Land Acquisition Judge was correct in discarding the Sale Deed No.1-3368( Exbt.1 ) or by not accepting its rate for deriving the land rate. The principles for assessing the rate now are well laid. There are reasons to suspect the said sale deed
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
Page 10 of 12
inasmuch as the quantum of the land is very small and that has been sold out in the close proximity of the acquisition. This creates an overshadowing situation. In such circumstances, the safer course would be not to rely such document. However, what this Court has found that even the Land Acquisition Collector initially determined the land rate at 32,00,000/- per kani for the same class of land. But showing no reason he has deducted 8,00,000/from the said amount to arrive at a rate of 24,00,000/- per kani of the same class of land. This aspect of the matter did not fall for consideration by the Land Acquisition Judge. That apart, the accelerating rate of development and the consequential increase in the land rate was totally ignored by the Land Acquisition Judge. Those are the essential elements which cannot be discarded while determining the land rate. Having regard to this aspect, this Court is of the view that land rate should be 45,00,000/- per kani as this Court has shown its reluctance to rely totally on the sale deed( Exbt.1 ).
17. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to determine the total compensation in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and by giving interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on all the components of the compensation from the date as laid down by in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. On such determination, the amount which has been already paid to the appellant shall have to be deducted following the principle as laid down by the Apex Court that first, the payment shall be adjusted against the interest and only after
Page 11 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
adjustment against the interest, from the principal compensation, the payment should be deducted. In this process, the remainder of the compensation shall be paid to the appellant within a period of three months.
18. Having observed thus, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs
thereafter.
JUDGE
Nihar
Page 12 of 12
LA APP NO.36 OF 2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Land Acquisition Judge correctly discarded the appellant's reliance on a high-value sale deed and determined the land rate
Whether the lower courts adequately considered the accelerating rate of land development in fixing compensation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶45
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, AIR 2012 SC 2721 · Who else cites this
State of Tripura & Ors. v. Thaikhai Mog Chowdhury & Anr.Explained¶59
State of Tripura & Ors. v. Thaikhai Mog Chowdhury & Anr.
Ravinder Narain v. Union of IndiaExplained¶66
Ravinder Narain v. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1491 · Who else cites this
H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. NegiReferred¶72
H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, AIR 2004 SC 1800 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rabindra Chandra Das
The Land Acquisition Collector West Tripura
The Executive Engineer Agartala Division
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
