The High Court of Tripura dismissed a petition seeking compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 after their land was utilized by the respondents for the construction of IBB Road and held that this is a chance litigation and such a casual approach of the petitioner towards courts cannot be entertained and the laches done on the part of the petitioner cannot be the grounds for extending all the benefits he has sought for by way of filing the petition.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is one of the many landholders in Birampur Mouja of Sepahijala District, at present, whose land was utilized by Respondent No. 1 for the construction of IBB Road without observing any legal acquisition proceedings and no award of compensation was awarded despite repeated demands. The Petitioner herein is either landholders or legal representatives of original landholders. He had a firm belief that Respondents would initiate the appropriate proceedings for disbursement of adequate compensation, though in the meantime more than three decades had elapsed and the petitioner has thus filed the present writ petition demanding the compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (the right to fair compensation and 2013).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that and owners whose lands were taken over under the purported acquisition proceedings were under a process of compulsory acquisition, but to receive compensation for the land taken over though not a fundamental right but a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 31 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that no document has been placed on record about the time of the laying of roads and to what extent the land of the petitioner was affected and the petitioner seems not to have raised any objection regarding the construction of the road back in 1993-1995 and more than 20 years have been elapsed by this time and the petitioner has not taken a single step for seeking any relief against the respondents. Further, the court stated that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is also silent about any action taken by the petitioner in order to extend any objection to such acquisition of land or to bring the matter before any appropriate forum for seeking relief.
Further, the court stated that even if the plea of the petitioner is considered by the court wherein it was another judgment was relied on where the court directed the respondents to determine the measurement of land actually utilized for said construction of the road as well as the determination of compensation, the petitioner seems to have woken up from his slumber after 1995 and he approached this court in the year, 2023 and the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and the laches done on the part of the petitioner cannot be the grounds for extending all the benefits he has sought for by way of filing the petition.
The court concluded that neither did the petitioner place any document showing that he is the lawful owner of the land in question nor did he submit any document showing his right, title and interest to claim compensation and stated that this is a chance litigation and such casual approach of the petitioner towards courts cannot be entertained.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of any merits and dismissed it.
Case Title: Tofayel Hussain vs Union of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud
Case No.: WP(C) 622 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Nandi
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B. Majumder, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee and Mr. S. Saha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
