Md. Golam Mustafa vs The State Of Tripura And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 617 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 4




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                         WP(C) NO.153 OF 2023

      Md. Golam Mustafa
                                                  ...... Petitioner(s)
                      Vs.

      The State of Tripura and ors.

                                                ...... Respondent (s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate.

Mr. Rajkumar P Singh, Advocate.

Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 08.08.2023.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

The brief fact of this present writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner is the

owner & possessor of land under Khatian No.1005, 752 & 484 of

District Sepahijala, Mouja-Kulubari, Tehasil Matinagar, Revenue

Circle & Sub-Division-Sonamura.

2. The State respondents without issuing any notice

beyond the knowledge used and occupied a vast quantity of land of

the petitioner, his mother, and wife for the purpose of the

extension of 132kv Electric Line.

3. The petitioner raised objection but the State

respondents & Power Grid did not hear the petitioner. The

petitioner through his lawyer issued notice on 22.06.2022. The

Power Grid on 01.07.2022 replied to the said lawyer's notice. Being

dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the

following reliefs:-

" a) Admit the petition;

b) Issue Notice upon the respondents;

c) Call for the records;

AND

d) After hearing be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 8 to shift the 132 kv Electric line from the Jote land of the petitioner.

AND To pay Cost/Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) to the petitioner for illegal possession and use of land of the petitioner."

4. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing

for respondents-TSECL, Mr. Rajkumar P. Singh, learned counsel

appearing for respondents Power Grid and Mr. D.C. Roy, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.10.

5. Mr. Rajkumar P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents-Power Grid submits that as per the survey report

of the Revenue official and the sale deed, they have paid the

compensation amount to respondent No-10 herein. The said sale

deed has been executed by the sister of the petitioner in favour of

respondent No.10.

6. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for

respondents-TSECL submits that they have adopted the reply

submitted by respondents No.3, 4, 5 & 7.

7. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the sister of the petitioner is a co-sharer

and without the consent of the petitioner, the sale deed of the

undivided share was executed.

8. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

9. In view of the disputed question of facts submitted by

both sides, this Court is of the opinion that it is not for this Court

to decide in regard to the sale deed alleged to have been executed

by the co-sharer, i.e., the sister of the petitioner in favour of the

unofficial respondent No.10 and with regard to the compensation

amount that has been disbursed and released in favour of the

respondent No.10 on the strength of sale deed.

10. Since checkered history and right & title of the

individual needs to be ascertained, hence, this cannot be

adjudicated in this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and the same is to be adjudicated before the

concerned competent Civil Court.

11. Accordingly in view of the above observation

and direction, this present writ petition stands dismissed. The

petitioner is at liberty to take steps in accordance with the law by

approaching the Civil Court for redressal against the concerned

persons.

12. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending

application(s), if any also stands closed.

JUDGE

suhanjit

RAJKUMAR Digitally RAJKUMAR signed by

SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2023.08.10 SINGHA 14:08:34 +05'30'