Smti. Anamika Ray (Das) vs Land Acquisition Collector & Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 1775 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smti. Anamika Ray (Das) vs Land Acquisition Collector & Another on 14 November, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                        Page 1 of 2




                              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                                  L.A. App. No.72 of 2024
Smti. Anamika Ray (Das)
                                                                          .....Appellant
                                     _V_E_R_S_U_S_

Land Acquisition Collector & Another
                                                                       .....Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
                     _F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
14.11.2024

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the respondents.

[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.03.2024 in connection with case No. C.M.(LA) 03 of 2023 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom.

[3] The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 acquired the land of the appellant measuring 1.12 acres classified as tilla, for the respondent No.2 for construction of railway line. The respondent No.1 assessed the value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,76,000/- per kani when at the time of acquisition the market value of the similar class of land was Rs.84,11,429/- per kani. But the learned L.A. Judge determined the value of the land @ Rs.7,20.000/- after deducting 40%. The learned Court below also did not awarded benefits under Sections-23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the L.A. Act, 1894 on the value of the trees standing on the acquired land.

[4] Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court for redress.

[5] This Court having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and prima facie opined that there is no material evidence placed before the learned Court below to convince the Court on the point of title deeds to say that the appellant is the claimant who is before this Court for the relief sought for. In absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be construed that the appellant is having alienable

rights and title of interest upon the property and to say that he is entitled for claiming any compensation, as prayed for.

[6] In view of the same, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Court below stands set aside and the case of the appellant is remanded back to the learned Court below for fresh adjudication on the strength of the documents that would be submitted by the parties and also to frame the issue and examine the same. Both the parties are at liberty to place sufficient evidence before the Court below and make their respective arguments.

[7] With the above observation and direction, the present appeal preferred by the appellant is remanded back to the learned Court below and thus, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending, if any, shall stand closed.

T. AMARNATH GOUD, J

A. Ghosh