Tripura High Court
Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd vs The State Of Tripura on 25 April, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.23 of 2025
Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at P.O.
Sadhanashram, Kailashahar, Dist.-Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799277, represented
by its Authorized Signatory Sri Ajoy Malakar, S/o Late Sarbaram Malakar.
......... Petitioner (s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, service through the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue,
Government of Tripura having office at New Secretariat, Agartala, Pin-
799010.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gouranagar, Kailashahar, District-
Unakoti, Tripura-799277.
.........Respondent (s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kushal Deb, Advocate,
Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Saha, Advocate,
Mr. Rounak Chakraborty, Advocate,
Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
25/04/2025
Heard Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Kushal Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents-State.
Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that Civil Misc. (Condonation) No.13/2024 filed in Civil
Misc. (Review) No.3/2024 for restoration of Civil Misc. (L.A.) No.15/2009
has been dismissed, though the delay in filing the review petition was only
ten days. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference
under Section 18 of the LA Act was made by the LA Collector in the year
2009 in respect of claim for damages and compensation for felling of
standing trees and bamboos in the acquired land of the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that WP(C)
No.277/2009 was preferred by the petitioner for enhancement of
compensation. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation,
Review Petition No.36 of 2011 was filed by the State of Tripura which was
also dismissed on 20.07.2011, by the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench.
Being aggrieved, the State went in appeal bearing Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.13749/2012. Vide order dated 30.04.2012, the Apex Court has
stayed the payment of enhanced amount. Since there is a stay on the payment
of enhanced amount of compensation for the land acquired, petitioner has not
pursued the LA reference case under Section 18 before the learned LA Court
as both the issues are interlinked. However, the reference case was dismissed
earlier on 27.06.2024 by the learned LA Judge, Unakoti District, Kailashahar,
on the ground that the petitioner has not been pursuing it diligently. Taking
the above grounds, a review petition was filed with a delay of ten days which
has been dismissed without any reason, relying upon orders passed in
arbitration cases.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
LA Court has not appreciated that the delay of ten days was caused due to the
time consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the order and preparation of
the review petition by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Ten
days' delay is therefore neither inordinate nor deliberate. The learned Court
has erroneously relied upon the decisions rendered in arbitration matters to
refuse condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
The delay may be condoned. The learned LA Court may be directed to decide
the main review petition in accordance with law.
Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate,
has sought to recuse from the matter since he had earlier represented the
petitioner. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate,
therefore appears on behalf of the respondents-State.
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government
Advocate, is not able to dispute the contention of the petitioner that 10 days
delay was neither inordinate nor deliberate in filing the review petition. He,
therefore, does not have any serious objection if the delay is condoned and
the main review petition is heard.
The impugned order dated 17.03.2025 reads as under:
"Ld. Counsel Mr. C. Bhattacharjee for the
petitioner has filed memo of appearance.
No step on behalf of the OPs.
It has been submitted in course of hearing by Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner that after the Judgment and
Order dated 27.06.2024 the petitioners in need of review
and stay of operation of impugned order applied for
certified copy on 29.06.2024 which was ready for delivery
on 06.07.2024 and after collecting the certified copy on
09.07.2024 it was sent to Kolkata Office to the Advocate
of the petitioner on 10.07.2024 and for perusal of the
review petition prepared Advocates of Agartala and
Kailashahar of the petitioner, the matter got delayed from
04.08.2024 to 31.08.2024 for a period of 10 days and also
for communication between Kailashahar and Kolkata for
which delay of 10 days has taken place and the said delay
is not intentional. Ld. Counsel thus prayed for condoning
the delay and allowing the petition.
This court is of the opinion that in these days of E-
mail services and other digital communication the ground
put forward on behalf of the petitioner is not satisfactory.
Moreover, for the official procedural delay between the
Advocates and the petitioner company the ground by itself
is not sufficient.
Moreover, considering the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case No. (2019) 2 SCC 455. Simplex
Infrastructure Ltd. Vrs. Union of India and also decision
of Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in Case No. Arb.A-
05/2023 and Arb.A06/2023 (The State of Tripura...vrs.
Shri Ashes Deb) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court and
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura did not allow the
condonation on the ground of delay for administrative
procedures and beyond the statutory prescribed period.
This court finds in the light of the decisions of
Hon'ble Apex court and also Hon'ble High Court that the
ground of delay has not been explained to the satisfaction
and as such the delay of 10 days cannot be considered.
The condonation petition is thus rejected.
This Misc case is disposed of uncontested.
Make necessary entry in TR and CIS."
It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that despite
sufficient explanation furnished, the learned Court has refused to condone the
delay of ten days in filing the review petition.
Upon consideration of the relevant materials placed from record
and the fact that the petitioner has shown sufficient explanations for the delay
of ten days in filing the review petition, the approach of the learned LA Court
does not seem to be proper in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the impugned
order is set aside. Let the learned LA Court proceed to hear the main review
petition after condonation of the delay of ten days preferred by the petitioner.
As such, the instant petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.04.28 17:08:02 +05'30'
