Tripura High Court
Mr. D. Bhattacharya vs Ms. P. Deb (Pal) on 14 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. No.26 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Mr. P. Saha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Deb (Pal), Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
14/09/2021
Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the
review-petitioner, the State of Tripura and others. Ms. P. Deb (Pal),
learned counsel has entered in the appearance for the referring-
claimant-respondents.
This review petition questions the judgment dated 21.01.2021
delivered in LA App. 21 of 2017. By that judgment, the appeal filed
by the state under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
challenging the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Judge,
West Tripura, Agartala [by the judgment and award dated
11.08.2016, delivered in Misc. LA. 170 of 2012] has been
dismissed. For noting the perspective facts, it may be stated that
the Land Acquisition Judge awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- per
kani.
The solitary plea, that was raised in the said appeal by the
State, the review-petitioners, is that this court while deciding
another appeal being LA App 79 of 2013 by dint of the common
judgment dated 14.09.2016 in State of Tripura and Ors. vs. Mira
Rrani Kar (Dutta) etc. for acquisition a piece of land, acquired
under the same project and the same notification, assessed the
compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per kani by interfering with the
assessment made by the L.A. Judge @ Rs.15,70,000/- per kani.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. having appeared for the
review petitioner has brought back the said ground for purpose of
this review petition. According to him, the principle of Section-28A
of the Land Acquisition Act, should be followed for assessment.
Hence, the judgment dated 11.08.2016, is required to be interfered
with by quantifying value of the land at Rs.2,00,000/- per kani on
reversing the assessment that has been made at Rs.8,00,000/- per
kani.
This court has given an anxious consideration of the said
submission of Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. Having noted the
sad submission, this court is constrained to observe that the same
ground was agitated in the appeal by the review-petitioner and
while discarding the said ground, this court had observed, inter alia,
that the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the review-
petitioner [the appellant then] has been stayed by the apex court in
the appeal filed by the referring-claimants [see para-5 of the
judgment dated 21.01.2020].
Further, it has been observed that in another appeal being LA
APP.71 of 2011, this court by the common judgment dated
21.07.2015 had approved the amount of assessment. By the
judgment dated 21.06.2016 delivered in LA APP. 50 of 2013, the
appeal had been dismissed on affirmance of the assessment of the
land value @ Rs.8,00,000/-. Even a review petition was filed from
the said judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Commandant, 1st
Battalion, Tripura State Rifles vs. Smt. Chhayashri Debbarma
and Ors. [LA APP 50 of 2013]. The said review petition being
Review Petition No.37 of 2017 has been dismissed by this court by
the order dated 29.01.2019. In para-8 of the impugned judgment it
has been recorded by this court:
"The land in those appeals are from the same project and under the
same notification and the award was satisfied by the Land Acquisition
Collector. According to Ms. P. Deb (Pal), learned counsel there cannot
be different treatment in respect of the present appeal."
In para-10 of the said judgment this court has observed
further as follows:
"For purpose of reference, it may be stated that by the notification
No. F.9(12)-REV/ACQ/II/1995 dated 19.08.1996 a tract of land
measuring more or less 9.52 acre at Mouja Gokulpur, including the
acquired land of the respondents measuring 1.03 acres pertaining to
plots No.4152, Khatian No.576 were acquired. When the land value
was determined by the LA Collector at Rs.35,000/- per kani, the
referring claimants, being aggrieved, pressed for the reference under
Section 18 of the LA Act for getting the appropriate value of the land.
The reference was duly made. The said reference being Misc. LA App.
No.170/2012 has been answered by the impugned judgment dated
11.08.2016 by holding that the referring claimants would get the land
value at Rs.8,00,000/- per kani."
On the basis of such foundation, the appeal was dismissed by
affirming the assessment of the Land Acquisition Judge at
Rs.8,00,000/- per kani.
Ms. P. Deb (Pal), learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has produced more judgments where this court has
affirmed the said land value. Even some records have been
produced by her to show that the review petitioner has complied
the said judgment passed in the appeals arising out of the same
project and under the same notification. But this court will not look
into those materials as those do not form part of the reference
made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being
Misc. LA170 of 2012.
Having observed thus, this court is of the view that there is no
merit in this review petition as the review-petitioner does not have
any right to reiterate the same ground which has been
comprehensively considered by this court in the appeal. They have
conceded that no other ground within the permitted parameters,
has been cited. As such, the review-petitioner has failed to make
out any case which shall persuade this court to review the
impugned judgment.
In the result, this review petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Moumita
