DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) Vs. RAJU LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. De, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. DK Das Choudhury and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court no. 2, Gomati, Udaipur, in Misc. (L.A.) 32 of 2014.

(3.) Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the outset submitted that the mode of determining the rate of the acquired land is entirely faulty and against the settled principles of law in respect of comparable sale instance. According to Mr. Dey, learned counsel the Land Acquisition Judge by relying the sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 has committed a serious error inasmuch as the said land has recorded an exorbitant price, if compared with the other sale instances as produced by the referring-claimants. However, Mr. Dey, learned counsel has admitted fairly that the market value has been determined for the said land by way of deduction at the rate of 75%, following the principles as enunciated by the apex court in Administrator General, West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi reported in (1988) 2 SCC 150 and Subh Ram and Ors v. Haryana State and Another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444. Mr. Dey, learned counsel was tenacious to contend repeatedly that selection of the sale instance is grossly wrong, inasmuch as while examining the said deed, the land acquisition collector had observed that 'Land of Deed No. A i.e. sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 which has produced by the landowner(sic.) as evidence of their claim cannot be taken into consideration towards fixing rate of land proposed to be acquired, because the transaction seems to be registered at a unjustified rate and may be intentionally.' That was not noticed or overlooked.