STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. RADHARAMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel states that with regard to very same acquisition proceedings, the approach adopted by the State in preferring the appeals, assailing the awards, is absolutely arbitrary and whimsical. Whereas in the cases of similarly situated land owners, no appeal stands preferred, in fact, the award stands accepted and payment released but only with respect to instant claimants/private respondents, appeals stand preferred.

(2.) State cannot be allowed to adopt such a discriminatory approach. There cannot be any method of pick and choose in preferring the appeals. The issue of redetermination of the market value by the Reference Court is to be accepted or rejected in totality, more so, when, as this Court is made to understand, about which fact there is no dispute, there is no difference on facts between the present private parties herein and the claimants of Misc. (L.A.) 133 of 2014, titled as Shri Narayan Acharjee and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector and another, Misc. (L.A.) 54 of 2005, titled as Smti. Anjali Das and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector and another, and Misc. (L.A.) 47 of 2005, titled as Shri Ram Prasad Dhanuk v. The Land Acquisition Collector and another. It is for this reason that the instant claimants did not prefer any appeal, accepting the amount, lower than what according to them was not even reflective of the true market value of the acquired land. It is seen that although claimants had placed on record proof of the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 25,00,000 per kani, but the learned Judge quantified the same to be Rs. 18,00,000. The re-determination of the amount was necessitated as the Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,36,000 per kani, which, allegedly was abysmally low and by no standard reflective of the true and correct market value of the acquired land, which a willing seller was ready to sell his land and a willing purchaser ready to purchase the same.

(3.) Well this Court does not reflect on the correctness of the findings of the learned District Judge and the issue on merits is left open.