Tripura High Court
The Agartala Municipal Corporation vs Sri Samar Kumar Bhaumik & Another on 27 June, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.30/2024
The Agartala Municipal Corporation
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Samar Kumar Bhaumik & another
.........Respondent(s).
The Agartala Municipal Corporation
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Samar Kumar Bhaumik & another
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,
Mr. Soumyadeep Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. P. Rathor, Advocate,
Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
27/06/2024
Heard Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner in
both the petitions, and Mr. P. Rathor, learned counsel for the respondent No.1
who is the decree holder. Also heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, the Land
Acquisition Collector, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. CRP No.30 of 2024 has been preferred by the Corporation against
the order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Ex(M) No.01 of 2018 by the learned
Executing Court where the learned Executing Court had taken up the matter
again and observed that no steps have been taken by the judgment debtor No.1.
In CRP No.30 of 2024 and CRP No.31 of 2024, learned counsel for the
Corporation has also laid a challenge to the subsequent orders dated 28.02.2024
passed in Ex(M) No.01 of 2018 and Ex(M) No.02 of 2018 respectively
whereby both the cases were posted for hearing once again on 15.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the execution
cases were disposed of on satisfaction of the award. The learned Court had
become functus officio and the matter has been revived once again though no
such application to that effect has been made. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in CRP No.27 of 2023 arising out of the order dated
20.12.2022 passed by the same Executing Court in same execution case
bearing No.Ex(M) 02 of 2018, this Court had observed that the Executing
Court should take a decision on the issue of due execution of the award taking
into account the computation prepared under the signature of Land Acquisition
Officer and Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura which was prepared
reckoning the date of possession as 23.12.2010 but after hearing the parties.
This Court had also observed that it has not expressed any opinion on the issue
of satisfaction of the award by the judgment debtor and observations, if any,
made thereinabove were only intended to effectively ensure that the Executing
Court takes a firm decision in a timeframe after hearing the parties and taking
into account the materials already on record as regards the proper execution of
the award in question.
4. It is submitted that on a similar issue, the order passed by this
Court in CRP No.26 of 2023 arising out of an execution case bearing No.
Ex(M) 01 of 2018 was made subject matter of challenge by the decree holder
in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).46658/2023. The Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 did not interfere in the matter. It has
observed that the High Court had only remanded the matter and directed a
decision to be taken after hearing the parties in a timeframe without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case. The Special Leave Petition was disposed
of with an observation that the Executing Court on the basis of the evidence led
before it by the parties, would be required to take a decision as to whether the
effective date of possession is 13.01.2009 or 23.12.2010.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier pursuant to
the order dated 12.08.2022 passed in CRP No.61 of 2022, the learned
Executing Court had vide order dated 20.12.2022 clearly held that the
possession was taken over on 23.12.2010. As such, revival of the execution
case which was disposed of on satisfaction of the decree by the impugned
orders is erroneous.
6. On notice, the respondent/decree holder has appeared through
learned counsel Mr. P. Rathor. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree
holder submits that the Apex Court has observed that the High Court has only
remanded the matter and directed that a decision be taken after hearing the
parties on the issue. It has also observed that the Executing Court on the basis
of the evidence led before it by the parties would be required to take a decision
as to whether the effective date of possession is 13.01.2009 or 23.12.2010.
Therefore, there is an obligation on the Executing Court to take a decision on
this issue. As such, both the revision petitions are not entertainable. The
Executing Court is only bound to abide by the observations made by the Apex
Court. As such, any such plea against the revival of the execution cases is not
tenable in law.
7. On consideration of the rival submission of the parties and after
having taken note of the facts and circumstances placed by the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the
observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 24.11.2023 in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).46658/2023 which arose out of the order
dated 05.07.2023 in CRP No.26 of 2023 passed by this Court, the Executing
Court is required to take a decision on the effective date of possession, i.e.
13.01.2009 or 23.12.2010.
8. In view of the observations and directions made by the Apex
Court and the duty cast upon the Executing Court thereby to decide on the
effective date of possession, the present revision petitions cannot be
entertained.
Learned counsel for the parties are at liberty to place their cases
before the Executing Court on this issue.
Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Date: 2024.07.06 17:59:51
+05'30'
