Shipra Biswas Majumder vs. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.6280 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.15550 of 2022)

UTTAM MAJUMDER

... APPELLANT

Versus

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.6281 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21355 of 2022)

SMT. SIPRA BISWAS (MAZUMDAR)

... APPELLANT

Versus

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS

OR DE R

1. Delay condoned.

$\mathbf{2}$ . Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the orders dated 16.07.2021 3. and 07.07.2021 respectively, passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala, whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation for appellant's land to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani besides Rs.10,000/- per Rubber tree, Rs.1,000/- for Garjanand Karai trees, Rs.1500/- for 📉 go tree and Rs.300/- for teak saplings.

The appellants in both the appeals are husband and wife respectively. Their facts being identical, it may not be necessary to repeat the same. Suffice to mention that the land of the appellants was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, `the Act') on 15.03.2012 followed by a Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 28.04.2012. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the Awards on 20.06.2012 and 25.06.2012 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per kani for land, Rs.800/- per rubber tree, Rs.200/- per Mango tree, Rs.120/- per Karai tree, Rs.150/- per Garjan tree and Rs.75/- for teak tree saplings. The appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Judge vide Awards dated 08.04.2016 and 06.10.2018 increased the market value of the land from Rs.4,00,000/- per kani to Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. The appellants were still dissatisfied and preferred First Appeals before the High Court. Vide impugned judgments dated 16.07.2021 and 07.07.2021, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and determined different rates for the trees as mentioned in the opening para of this order.

5. Still aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully perused the material placed on record.

7. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the appreciation of exemplars by the High Court in para 10 of the impugned judgment is legally correct and if not so, whether the matter requires to be remanded for a fresh consideration?

8. It may be seen from para 10 of the 1st impugned judgment

2

that the High Court considered the sale deed (Exhibit-1), dated 04.06.2007, and also referred to a series of sale deeds (Exhibit-2), and observed that the land of 'tilla class' had been sold at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani vide the said sale deed. The acquired land was also found to be of 'tilla class'. Thereafter, the High Court took note of the claim made by the appellants in the reference where they had demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. Though the fact that the appellants had subsequently claimed Rs.30,00,000/- per kani was duly acknowledged but the High Court eventually held them entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani only.

9. We find from Annexure-A, appended with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in one of these appeals that Exhibit-2 comprised six sale instances, all executed much prior to the issuance of Section 4 Notification on 15.03.2012. These sale deeds are dated 25.10.2010, 03.11.2010, 19.11.2010, 08.12.2010 and 15.12.2010. Five out of six sale deeds pertain to 'tilla class' of land. It further appears that four of these tilla lands were sold for residential purposes and two for orchard. The sale consideration, on average, ranges from Rs.7,00,000/- per kani to Rs.60,00,000/- per kani.

10. Since the High Court has neither discussed the location of the lands sold through these sale deeds nor their proximity or relevance for the determination of market value of the appellant's land, we find it difficult to express any opinion as to whether the appellants are justified in relying upon these sale deeds for further enhancement of compensation. The High Court has not

3

deliberated upon these exemplars except referring to one of them whereby the land was sold at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani.

11. During the course of hearing, we are informed that these sale instances were relied upon by the appellants at the very first instance before the Land Acquisition Collector.

12. It appears to us that the High Court ought not to have determined the compensation only on the basis of one sale instance or the amount claimed by the appellants in their reference under Section 18 of the Act. All that the High Court was required to do was to consider the sale instances and then determine as to whether all the sale instances or any one of them is comparable with the acquired land for the purpose of assessing the fair and just market value of the acquired land.

13. For the reasons aforestated, the appeals are allowed in part, the impugned judgments dated 16.07.2021 and 07.07.2021 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for a fresh determination of the market value of the acquired land of the appellants keeping in view the exemplars relied upon by them before the Land Acquisition Collector/Reference Court.

14. It goes without saying that the High Court will not reduce the compensation already awarded to the appellants at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani.

15. We request the High Court to re-determine the rate of compensation within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties before the High Court.

16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appellant's claim.

4

As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also 17. stand disposed of.

$.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,$ (SURYA KANT)

$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cd$ (DIPANKAR DATTA)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 27, 2023.

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15550/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-07-2021 in LAAPP No.108/2019 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala)

UTTAM MAJUMDER Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 21355/2022 (XIV)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.173582/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.173583/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 27-09-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

	For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Rajesh J, Adv.
		Mr. J.Singh, Adv.
		Mr. Tushar Goel, Adv.
		Mr. Aniket W., Adv.
		Mr. Gajendra Negi, Adv.
		Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR
	For Respondent(s)	Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
		Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv.
		Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
		Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
		Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
		Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv.
		Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
		Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
		UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following<br>O R D E R
	Delay condoned.
	Leave granted.
		The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed
order.

As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stand disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)