Tripura High Court
Sri Ayatul Islam vs The Union Of India on 28 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.201 OF 2024
1. Sri Ayatul Islam,
S/o- Late Ali Akbar.
2. Sri Narul Islam,
A/o- Late Ali Akbar.
3. Smt. Rejiya Khatun,
W/o Late Ali Akbar
All are the resident of Birampur, Jatrapur, P.O- Jatrapur, P.S.-
Jatrapur, Sub- Division - Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura.
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi.
2. The Commander (HQ),
755BRTF(GREF),
Lichubagan, Agartala
C/o APO, West Tripura.
3. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
To the Revenue Department,
Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Agartala, 799006.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector,
Sepahijala District,
Bishramganj, Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. De, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 28.06.2024
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present writ petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution India for issuing rule against the respondents to
show cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to
make a fresh survey of the land, possession of which was taken
over for the construction of the Indo-Bangladesh border within the
periphery of Birampur Mouja and then initiate proceeding for
acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for
payment of due compensation to the land owners.
2. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing
for the State respondents as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned
Deputy SGI appearing for the Union respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioners they were in possession
of land measuring 0.10 satak, situated at Mouja Birampur, Tahsil-
Dhanpur, vide Plot No.710 to 712, Revenue Circle-Dhanpur under
Sepahijala District for a quiet a long period and way back in 1999,
the respondents have taken over portion of land by way of
acquisition without following the due procedure of law of notifying
the same. The petitioners all through kept silent without claiming
any compensation for the same. Vide allotment order dated
25.01.2014, the land was allotted in favour of Mr. Ali Akbar and his
wife Smt. Rejiya Khatun who is the third petitioner herein. In
pursuance thereof, the petitioners are now seeking compensation in
respect of the land which is affected. Further, the petitioners claim
that they are entitled to compensation since, Late Ali Akbar who is
the father of petitioners No.1 and 2 was under possessory rights
prior to 1999.
4. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that similarly placed claimants have made
claims before the respondents and, accordingly, the compensation
were granted to them in pursuance of the orders passed by this
Court. The same relief should not be denied to the petitioners
herein.
5. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Government Pleader upon
instruction submits before this Court that the petitioners are not
entitled to claim any compensation as the petitioners were not the
owner and the allotment was given subsequent to the acquiring of
the property in 2014. On the date of the acquisition, the rights, title
and interest of the petitioners have not been recognized by the
Government. Stating thus, the learned Government pleaded to
dismiss the petition.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record.
7. Admittedly, the land in question had been acquired
way back in the year 1999 (the date and the particulars have not
been provided in the affidavit or the documents enclosed).
However, it is seen from the record that the allotment of land had
been issued in favour of late Ali Akbar who is the father of
petitioners No.1 and 2 and Smt. Rejiya Khatun who is the third
petitioner herein in the year 2014 and now upon the strength of the
said allotment order, the petitioners are before this Court seeking
compensation in respect of the part of the land which has been
effected under the land acquisition.
8. The contention the petitioners have made is that
the similarly placed persons have been granted compensation and
the petitioners should be denied for the same. It is not for this
Court to go into the said matter when the records are not placed
before this Court to consider. Moreover, the facts in those cases are
not ventilated, and thus placing reliance on those orders for the
present, this Court feels is of no relevance. Discrimination can only
be pleaded after establishing the statutory rights by the petitioners.
The petitioners are claiming possessory right upon the land when it
was affected by acquisition in the year 1999 but the petitioners
have not placed any record before the Court to say that they were
in possession of the said land on the said period and that too were
having recognized rights under law.
9. If a land lord is losing his land by way of acquisition, he is
certainly entitled for fair compensation. But compensation cannot be
bonanza for any unauthorized claimant, who has no locus standi.
10. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion
that since the petitioners were an unauthorized occupant in the year
1999 and a trespasser of Government land, now, the petitioners in the
year 2024 cannot approach this Court seeking compensation in respect
of the acquisition made in the year 1999. Since the petitioners have
not made out their statutory right to claim compensation and also on
the point of delay and laches, this Court considers, that it is not a fit
case to entertain and is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have
not approached this Court with clean hands.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
12. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
13. The copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura to look into such claims.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.07.02
SINGHA 14:06:47 +05'30'
