Tripura High Court
Marich Mian Alias Marich Miah vs The Union Of India And Ors on 6 January, 2021
Page - 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.585/2020
Marich Mian alias Marich Miah
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.586/2020
Abdul Gani
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.587/2020
Billal Hossain
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.588/2020
Ismail Miah alias Ismail Mian
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.589/2020
Ayatul Hosan
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
Page - 2 of 8
WP(C) No.590/2020
Maniruj Jaman
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.591/2020
Abdul Hassem
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.592/2020
Maphijul Islam
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.593/2020
Abdul Kader
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.594/2020
Ayatul Islam
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.595/2020
Md. Abul Hassem
............ Petitioner(s).
Page - 3 of 8
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.596/2020
Abdul Oyab alias Abdul Wab.
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.597/2020
Ahid Mia
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.599/2020
Abul Kasem
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.600/2020
Jahangir Hossen
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.601/2020
Abdul Mamin
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
Page - 4 of 8
WP(C) No.602/2020
Safik alias Saphik Mia
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.603/2020
Md. Shah Alam alias Ahaha Alam
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.626/2020
Kamal Haque
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.682/2020
Sahidur Rahaman
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.683/2020
Abdul Hamid
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
WP(C) No.684/2020
Saleya Begam
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
Page - 5 of 8
WP(C) No.685/2020
Ibrahim Miah
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The Union of India and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Nandi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biduyt Majumder, Asstt. S. G.,
Mr. K C Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. D C Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
_O_R_D_E_ R_
06/01/2021
All the petitions arise in common background.
All the petitioners contend that their agricultural lands have been
occupied by the authorities for construction of border road specially for
the purpose of movement of Border Security Force(BSF) vehicles.
Despite use and occupation of such lands of the petitioners since several
years, the authorities have not paid any compensation for the same. In
short, the petitioners contend that their private lands have been taken over
for public purpose without following the procedure of acquisition or
without paying any compensation in any form.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for
directions for payment of compensation under Right to Fair
Page - 6 of 8
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. In support of their prayer, petitioners relied on a
judgment of this Court dated 10th May, 2018 in case of Nepal Paul &
others. Vs. the Union of India & others in WP(C) No.952/2016 and on a
subsequent judgment dated 26th February, 2020 in case of Immam
Hussain Vs. The Union of India & others in WP(C) No.1163/2019 and
connected petitions.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Bidyut Majumder
appearing for the Union of India, however, submitted that the question
whether any part of the lands of any of the petitioners have been so
occupied as averred by the petitioners itself has to be ascertained. He
submitted that in consultation with the Land Acquisition Officer, the BSF
has initiated such exercise which may take some more time. He placed on
record a communication dated 28th December, 2020 made by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Sepahijala District to the Assistant Engineer(Civil) in
which the details of the lands of the petitioners have been provided.
In case of Nepal Paul(supra), this Court directed the authorities
to work out the compensation payable to the land owners whose lands
were utilized for public project without acquisition and payment of
compensation in following terms :
Page - 7 of 8
"11. There is no dispute in respect of taking over possession. The
question therefore falls for consideration is that how to determine
the compensation in the circumstance. Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the new Act) provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceeding initiated under Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and no award under Section 11 of the LA Act has been made,
then all provisions of the new Act shall apply.
12. Hence, the Collector having determined the market value of the
land under reference following the due process as laid down under
Section 28 of the new Act, shall determine the compensation under
Section 27 of the new Act within 6(six) months in the circumstances
of the case. The compensation shall include all components as
expounded by the new Act."
Review filed against the said decision was dismissed.
Subsequently, this formula was also adopted in case of Immam Hussain
(supra).
If, therefore, any part of the land of any of the petitioners has
been occupied for construction of the said road and for which neither
compensation has been paid nor the land was relinquished voluntarily by
foregoing right to receive compensation, the respondents must
compensate the petitioners as provided in case of Nepal Paul(supra).
However, whether any such land has been so utilised, itself is a
foundational question of fact. Unless and until such fact is ascertained, no
Page - 8 of 8
directions can be issued in favour of the petitioners for payment of any
compensation.
At the first instance, therefore, let the respondents No.1 and 2
carry out such exercise of ascertaining whether any part of the land of any
of the petitioners has been occupied for construction of the said road in
consultation with the state authorities-respondents No.3 and 4. If it is
found that any land has been so acquired and for which neither any
compensation was paid in the past nor the land owner had relinquished the
right to receive compensation, the formula provided by the Court in case
of Nepal Paul(supra) will be applied in case of such petitioners also.
The respondents No.1 and 2 shall communicate to the petitioners
the outcome of the exercise of the first level of ascertaining the correct
facts within a period of 4(four) months from today. Thereafter, entire
gamut of computing and paying compensation in cases where the
compensation becomes payable, shall be completed within 6(six) months.
All petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s),
if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
