Sri Gurudayal Laskar vs Nityananda Bhowmik (Debnath)
2022 Latest Caselaw 859 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 3




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                             L.A. App. No. 26 of 2017
Sri Gurudayal Laskar                                            ..... Appellant(s)
        Vs.

Nityananda Bhowmik (Debnath)                                  ..... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Daniel Debbarma, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

Order 16/09/2022 (Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

Heard learned counsel of the respective parties.

Challenge in the present appeal has been made under Section 54

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment & order passed by

learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura, dated

16/02/2017 in case No. Misc.(L.A) 06 of 2011.

Challenging the said impugned judgment & order learned

counsel for the appellant raised various contentions inter alia on the ground

that the learned Land Acquisition Judge decided the appeal referred to him

by Land Acquisition Collector basing on the materials issued and on

materials which were never pleaded before him and adequate opportunity to

lead evidence was also not granted to the other side. Consequently, the

present appeal has been filed.

Undeniably, the appellant as well as the private-respondent

herein have claimed their rights that flowed from Late Maidhor Ali Master,

the original owner and consequently, through his children. After he passed

away, transactions were effected both in favour of the appellant as well as

the private-respondent and family. Various other developments have

occurred between the parties purportedly including registered exchange.

At this stage, both the learned counsel for the respective parties

agreed that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back

to the learned Land Acquisition Judge with liberty to both the parties to lead

additional evidence, if any, in support of their respective stands, this would

subserve the cause of justice.

This Court in a view to accede the aforesaid requests does not

intend to give any observation on the rival contentions. Accordingly, the

impugned judgment & order dated 16.02.2017 passed by learned Land

Acquisition Judge is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Court

of learned Land Acquisition Judge who in turn is further directed to afford

reasonable opportunities to both the parties i.e. the appellant as well as the

private-respondent to lead further evidence, if any. Parties are directed to

cooperate in this matter and the learned Land Acquisition Judge shall do

well to dispose of the matter at an early date, preferably within a period of

9(nine) months from today. However, it is further made clear that nothing

stated in this order shall be deemed to adjudicate any of the issues raised by

the either side.

On 31/10/2022 parties are directed to appear before the learned

Land Acquisition Judge along with the certified copies of this order.

Registry is also directed communicate the copy of this order to the court of

the concerned L.A. judge. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Manti D'Barma