Tripura High Court
Shri Prabin Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And 3 Ors on 9 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 89 of 2025
Shri Prabin Debbarma
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura and 3 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. D. Kalai, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
09.04.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking
the following relief(s):
i. Issue rule, upon the respondents as to why in the nature of Saturday may not be
issued sending for records, relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings, from
the custody of the respondents for rendering substantial justice holding that
construction of Rd. One that you've learned of the petitioner is parsi legal and
violating the constitutional mandates, edge and strength in article 300 A of the
constitution of India and for quashing the decision not to act in conformity with the
advocates notice SO for payment of compensation for illegally occupying the land
measuring 0.16 accords for construction of Rd. on joke land of the petitioner.
ii. Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why read in the nature of
mandamus shall not be issued commanding respondents or each one of them to
restore the land in its original position and give up the position of the land to the
petitioner and pay compensation for temporary holding the length since 2014 till
date of release.
iii. You should rule upon the respondents and each one of them to show this to why a
rid of mandamus shall not be should directing them to pay company adequate
compensation to the petitioner by way of acquisition of the land under the right to
fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition rehabilitation and
resettlement project, 2013.
iv. Any other order or orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper may be passed.
v. Issue rule absolute in terms of prayer Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii).
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner measuring 0.16
acres has been possessed by the Govt. and constructed a road running from Champahour
to Hatimara which runs over the Jote land of the petitioner under 1293. The petitioner
filed a WP(C) 655 of 2022 which is allowed by this Court directing the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner within 1(one) month from copy of the judgment and
communicate the decision.
[4] Despite submission of representation with copy of the judgment on
23.12.2022, it resulted no fruitful result till date. The DM & Collector desires to go for
direct purchase through the land purchasing committee. The petitioner was called on
who participated in meeting but did not agree to sell his land at the unilateral price to be
given without acquisition.
[5] The petitioner wanted the Govt. to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings
under the respective Land Acquisition Act, and pay adequate compensation. It is
apparent that earlier Writ Petition was filed. There was initiation of process of
acquisition for excess land of 0.16 acres by engaging expert group for social impact
assessment in 2020. But the respondents herein are indulged to go for direct purchase at
their whims missing the concept of purchase simplicitor. Hence, this petition.
[6] During the course of his submission, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has submitted before this court that in terms of the claim of the petitioner (i.e.
the compensation for the land of his land), the concerned respondent(s) is ready for
disbursement of the amount.
[7] In view of the same, without expression any opinion on the merit of the
case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to
approach before the concerned respondents for receiving the amount.
[8] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands
disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK DAS Date: 2025.04.11
