MONO MOHAN DEBNATH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Mono Mohan Debnath
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
Click here to view full judgement.
ARINDAM LODH,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. DC Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-LA Collector.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned LA Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. Civil Misc (LA) 07 of 2014. By means of filing this appeal, the appellant, who has lost his land, has claimed for enhancing the rate of compensation as assessed by the learned LA Judge.
(3.) The facts in brief, are that, by issuing notification dated 07.09.2011 and declaration dated 17.10.2011, the land in question, was acquired for construction of approach road to proposed bridge over river Juri on Tilthai- Anandabazaar road. After acquisition, the LA Collector has assessed the market price of the acquired land. Being aggrieved, the appellant has sought for reference. The learned LA Judge issued notice to the reference asking the LA Collector, the requiring department and the land owner to file claim statement and counter statement. After exchange of pleadings, evidences were recorded. The appellant had filed examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC. The LA Collector and the requiring department also filed their respective examination-in-chief. Having heard the learned counsel and on consideration of the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned LA Judge came to the following findings:
'12. All the issues are taken up together for findings. In this case the referring claimant proved some instances of sale deed executed in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively whereas the notification and declaration of acquisition was made in the year 2011. Moreover the referring-claimant also proved some unregistered agreement of sale deeds. But as per the Registration Act such agreement of sale deeds needs to be registered and as the said agreement of sale deeds were not registered, the said deed cannot be taken into consideration for determining the price of the acquired land.
13. On perusal of certified copy of deed no. 1-00035 dated 07-01-2014 proved as exhibit-1 it appears that land measuring 19 satak of plot no. 48, 316, 218,1600 and 1708/6775 was sold at the price of Rs.3,80,000/- and so the rate of the land per kani is Rs.8,00,000/-. From certified copy of deed no.1-00030 dated 06-01-2012 proved as exhibit-2 it appears that land measuring half satak of plot no. 1209 was sold at the price of Rs.40,000/- and so the rate of the land per kani is Rs.32,00,000/-. From certified copy of registered sale deed no. 1'00382 dated 15-03- 2013 proved as exhibit-5 it appears that land measuring 2 satak of plot no. 2225 was sold at the price of Rs.1,05,000/- and so the rate of the land per kani is Rs.21,00,000/- and from certified copy of deed no.1-00381 dated 15-03-2013 proved as exhibit-3 it appears that land measuring 3 satak of plot no. 2225 was sold at the price of Rs.1,58,000/- and so the rate of the land per kani is approx Rs. 21,00,000/-.
14. In this case the exhibit-2, deed no.1-00030 dated 06-01-2012 is the highest exemplar deed. Keeping the aforesaid principles as quoted above in mind and considering all the above facts and evidence, by way of deduction of 1/3rd from the price of the land of Exemplar deed Ext. 2, the value of the acquired land is decided at Rs. 21, 00, 000/- per Kani. The referring claimant is also entitled to get all other statutory benefits, accordingly, all the three issues are decided in favour of the referring claimant.' ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.