Tripura High Court
Shri Abdul Gani vs The Union Of India on 8 April, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.35/2025
1. Shri Abdul Gani
S/o. Late Chamed Ali
2. Shri Muslem Miah
S/o. Late Sujat Ali
3. Shri Safik Miah
S/o. Late Sujat Ali
4. Smt. Afhiya Khatun
W/o. Late Chan Miah
5. Smt. Jamila Khatun
W/o. Nawab Ali
All are resident of Birampur,
Jatrapur, PO. & P.S. Jatrapur,
Sub-Division Sonamura,
Sepahijala Tripura.
---Appellant(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),
755 BRTF (GREF)
Lichu Bagan, 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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Advocate
Mr. Robel Hossain, Advocate
Ms. Meena Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI
Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 08/04/2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
Page 2 of 6
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants. Also heard
learned Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Gautam,
learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court seeking compensation in
lieu of dispossession of their landed property without acquisition for
construction of Indo-Bangladesh Border Road in late 1990s. Out of the five
writ petitioners, four of them rely upon the Record of Rights, which is annexed
as Annexure-3 to the Memo of Appeal to claim that despite their names
appearing in the record of rights, no compensation was paid to them for the
construction of Indo-Bangladesh Border nor their lands were lawfully
acquired. They claim to be the owners of the land measuring 0.65 acres, Mauja
Biarampur, Tahsil-Dhanpur, Khatian No.273/2, 273/3, 273/4 and 273/5,
Revenue Circle-Dhanpur under Sepahijala District. According to them, the
land originally belongs to one Kadarer Necha, after whose death, they along
with other legal heirs have got this land by inheritance. They have been
cultivating the lands with seasonal crops, and one house with tin shed and
pucca floor has been constructed, in which they have been residing with
their family members. According to them, Indo-Bangladesh Border Road
was constructed over their land upon Plot Nos.1207, 1208, 1655 and 1578,
1579, 1654, measuring 0.22, 0.15, 0.40, 0.10, 0.23, 0.84 satak,
classified as Bustu/Charra, but unfortunately at the time of construction no
acquisition notice was served. The appellants along with other
land owners were affected. Despite objection raised they have not been paid
any paisa in lieu of such construction.
3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2024. The learned Writ Court
dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit as the petitioners were not
able to place any document to show their claim as lawful owners of the land in
question. They have not placed any title deed in their favour. Therefore, in the
absence of any prima facie document they have failed to make out a case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in connection with
acquisition of the adjacent lands for construction of the Indo-Bangladesh
Border Road the affected persons have earlier approached the Writ Court, such
as in the case of Shri Nepal Paul and 2 Ors. vs. The Union of India and 3
Ors. in WP(C) No.952 of 2016. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred
to certain judgments rendered in the cases of WP(C) 952 of 2016, WP(C)
No.585 of 2020, WP(C) No.1163 of 2019 and other such writ petitions which
were disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to grant
compensation. Some of those writ petitions are annexed with the Memo of
Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the Act 1894 has
been repealed and replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
the respondents should be directed to reinitiate the proceedings by issuing
fresh notification under the new Act.
5. The learned Writ Court did not appreciate the grievance of the petitioner
in its right perspective and refused to interfere in the matter.
6. Before the learned Writ Court, a counter affidavit was filed by
respondent nos.1 and 2 categorically disputing the averments made in the writ
petition. They stated that the writ petition was not maintainable since the
petitioner has no locus standi. No cause of action arose in their favour. There
has been no denial of legal or fundamental rights, nor any act of discrimination
against them. Several disputed matter of facts, which need evidence, have been
raised, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court. The appellants have not submitted any document
showing even their prima facie right, title and interest over the said land to
invite judicial interference. The construction of IBB Road at Mauja Birampur
was done in 1995 whereas the appellants have approached this Court after
expiry of more than 29 years of unexplained delay. They have also placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in WP(C) No.622 of 2023 dated
04.10.2023 where such claim was dismissed. They have also objected to the
writ petition on the same grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India and State, both
submit that none of the ingredients for seeking a relief from the Writ Court has
been made out on the part of the writ petitioners. Firstly, they have not able to
show whether their land was actually acquired for the purpose of construction
of Indo-Bangla Border Road in late 1990s. No notification of acquisition of
any other land for construction of the Indo-Bangla Border Road during that
period has been annexed to show that these petitioners were left out in the
process of acquisition. The petitioners have also not been able to show any
document of title over the land. In the absence of such prima facie materials,
the learned Writ Court has rightly refused to grant any relief. It is submitted
that the decisions rendered by the learned Writ Court in other cases cited by
the petitioners also did not direct straightaway grant of compensation as
several disputed questions of facts were involved. In those decisions, the
learned Writ Court had at the first instance directed the respondent nos.1 and 2
to carry out such exercise of ascertaining whether any part of the land of any
of the petitioners has been occupied for construction of the said road in
consultation with the State authorities. And only if it is found that land has
been acquired without any compensation, the formula provided in the case of
Nepal Paul could be applied in the case of such petitioners. It is submitted that
in the absence of prima facie material on the part of present petitioners this
court should not direct the authorities to indulge in roving and fishing inquiry
to first determine whether any piece of their land was really used or acquired
for construction of Indo-Bangla Border Road moreover when these petitioners
have not shown any document of title to establish their claim. Therefore, the
order of the learned Writ Court does not require any interference.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials placed on record. No doubt, it is well settled
that in matters of acquisition, if the land loser has been dispossessed by the
State authorities for execution of any public project without any formal
acquisition process, delay in approaching the Court would not defeat the
valuable right to property of such land loser. However, in order to establish a
claim, it is elementary that such persons like the writ petitioners prima facie
are able to show that their lands have been used for construction of the Indo-
Bangla Border Road and they are the rightful owners on the basis of valid
documents of title. In the present case, they have failed to bring on record any
notification showing the acquisition of the land for construction of the Indo-
Bangla Border Road in Berampur where their pieces of land have been left out
illegally and unfairly. In the absence of such prima facie materials, the Writ
Court had no other option but to refuse to interfere in the matter. We,
therefore, do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The instant writ
appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rohit
SATABD byDUTTA
I DUTTA Date: 2025.04.11
12:11:21 +05'30'
