Tripura High Court
Sri Jahar Chandra Paul vs The State Of Tripura And Another on 5 April, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 537 of 2023
Sri Jahar Chandra Paul
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. De, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, GA.
Ms. K. Reang, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
05.04.2024
This is a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
seeking following relief(s):
(i) Admit this petition;
(ii) After hearing this petition your Lordship would be pleased to Issue writ and/or order
directing the respondents as to why the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Hon'ble
High Court in connection with WP(C)242 of 2023 may not be consider to reference of the
case being LA Case No.01/D of 2008, serial no.18 to the Ld. LA Judge Dharmanagar,
North Tripura and also after hearing both side a direction be given to the Respondent no.2
to refer the case to the Ld. LA Judge Dharmanagar, North Tripura with the specific period
as your Lordship deemed fit and proper.
(iii) To pass any other order/orders or directing the respondents as Your Lordship deem fit and
proper having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case.
[2] It is the case of the petitioner that a land acquired for the purpose of
construction of extension of Churaibari check post under North Tripura District. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by LA Collector Dharmanagar, the
petitioner filed an objection petition to refer the case to the Ld. LA Judge but did not
refer. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition bearing no WP(C)242 of 2023. After
hearing both the sides, this Court by an order dated 19.04.2023 directed the LA, Collector
to consider the prayer of the petitioner for referring the case to the LA, Judge for
determining fair compensation. The LA Collector did not consider the order passed on
19.04.2023 by this Court.
[3] By an order dated 05.07.2023 the LA Collector, Dharmanagar rejected the
petition of the petitioner and did not consider the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by
Hon'ble High Court. The LA Collector opined that though the petitioner had filed a
petition on 14.03.2008 prior declaration of the award dated 27.03.2008 so the petitioner
prayer cannot be considered.
[4] The petitioner stated that the petitioner filed the petition prior 12 days of
the declaration of award. The petitioner came to know at the time of hearing expressed
the quantum of amount of compensation. Being aggrieved after knowing the said
quantum the petitioner filed this objection petition for referring the case to the Ld.LA
Judge,
[5] On the contrary, Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for
the state-respondents by way of counter affidavit has contended that as per judgment
dated 19.04.2023 passed in case No. WP(C)242 of 2023 by this Court, it was directed
that the petition of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law. But as per
LA Act, 1894 in accordance with law, the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable
due to non-submission of the petition within the stipulated period i.e. 42 days (Six weeks)
from the announcement of award dated 27.03.2008. He further contended that the
respondents already paid compensation to the claimants of the property long back and
petitioner is making unlawful demand. Hence he prayed to dismiss the petition.
[6] After perusal of the record and having considered the submission as
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to this court that the petitioner
has already received the compensation without raising any protest way back in the year
2008. The petitioner has after long years woken up from slumber urging this Court to
direct the respondents to give him just and proper compensation. By this time, a long
time has already been elapsed. By considering the submissions made by Government
Advocate, it appears that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands
and he has failed to make out his case. Therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
[7] In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2024.04.08
17:10:59 +05'30'
