The Union Of India vs Badu Miya
2023 Latest Caselaw 143 Tri

                                Page 1



                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                          W.A. 126 of 2022
1. The Union of India
represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Border Road
Organization), New Delhi-110001
2. The Commander, (HQ), 755 BRTF (GREF)
Lichubagan, Agartala, C/o 99 APO, Agartala, West Tripura
                                         ... APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS

(Respondents No.1 and 2 in WP(C) 148 of 2021) Versus

1. Badu Miya son of Chan Miya, resident of Machima, PS- Jatrapur, Kathalia Block, P.O. Jatrapur, District- Sepahijala, Tripura ... RESPONDENT-PETITIONER (Petitioner in W.P(C) 148 of 2021)

2. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Revenue Department, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala- 799006, West Tripura

3. Land Acquisition Collector Sepahijala District, Bishramganj-799103 ... RESPONDENTS.

For Appellant(s)           :             Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
For Respondent(s)          :             Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment                :             07.02.2023
Whether fit for reporting         :      Yes / No
            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                  Judgment & Order (Oral)
07/02/2023
(T. Amarnath Goud, ACJ)

Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for

the appellant-respondents. Also heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent petitioner.

Page 2

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-respondents

challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge

dated 05.04.2022 passed in WP(C) no.148 of 2021.

3. The fact of the case is that the land of the petitioner was

acquired for construction of IBB road without any determination

of the value of the land, for which the petitioner had filed a writ

petition before this Hon'ble Court. A learned single Judge of this

court by its judgment dated 05.04.2022 disposed of the writ

petition with a direction for paying the compensation after

determining the value of the land including rent in favour of the

petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order to the extent of

paying rent to the land loser including the petitioner for such

acquisition by the appellant-respondents, the instant writ appeal

has been filed.

4. Learned Deputy SGI appearing for the appellant-

respondents has submitted that since acquisition, the land of the

petitioner has not been utilized. Learned Deputy SGI has also

urged that prior to determination of utilization of the land, the

impugned order has been passed. Learned Deputy SGI has also

urged that it is the duty of the respondent no. 3, LA Collector to

determine as to whether the land has been utilized or not and

after such determination the appellant shall make the payment of

the entire compensation.

Page 3

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner could not

place any evidence so as to establish that the land has been

utilized by the appellant-respondents.

6. We have perused the records and also the judgment of the

learned single Judge

7. At para 9 of the judgment, learned single Judge has

directed to make survey and assess the compensation within a

prescribed period. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under:

"09. Be that as it may, if it is found that even beyond the road some patches of land of the petitioners have been utilized by the respondents No.1 & 2 for purpose of construction or for other purposes, appropriate compensation including the rent will be paid to the land-loser including the petitioners. The entire exercise of survey and assessment of compensation shall be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order. It is made absolutely clear that after the said survey is complete and the value is determined, the compensation to the petitioners shall be made by another 4(four) weeks from the date of such determination as per law."

8. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner failed to show

any evidence that his land has been utilized by the appellant-

respondents. Further, there is no evidence to show that the

determination of compensation has already been done despite

there was a direction of the learned single Judge to determine

the value of the land within a stipulated period of time. Learned

single Judge in its judgment has clearly directed if it is found that

even beyond the road some patches of land of the petitoners

have been utilized by the respondents no. 1 and 2 for purpose of

construction or for other purposes, appropriate compensation

including the rent will be paid to the land loser including the Page 4

petitioners and the entire exercise of survey and assessment of

compensation shall be completed within a period of six weeks

from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this

order. Thus, it is aptly clear that inspite of passing of the

judgment, the LA Collector failed to make any survey and

determine the compensation. It is the duty of the respondent no.

3, LA Collector to survey the land and determine the value of the

acquired land and thereafter the appellant-respondents are liable

to make the payment as per Acts and Rules.

9. Thus, we are of the view that if the determination is already

done, then, the compensation shall be disbursed within 3 (three)

months from the date of passing of this order in accordance with

Act and Rules. It is also made clear that if the determination is

not done, the same shall be done within a period of 2 (two)

months from the date of receipt of this order, and thereafter 3

(three) months for disbursement of the amount in terms of the

Acts and Rules.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit, the

writ appeal stands disposed of. Interim application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

              JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)



Saikat