Tripura High Court
Sri Gurudayal Laskar vs Sri Nityananda Bhowmik (Debnath) on 4 August, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA.App 43 of 2024
Sri Gurudayal Laskar
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Nityananda Bhowmik (Debnath)
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. Prasenjit Shil, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. Subhendu Noatia, Advocate.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
04.08.2025
[1] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LA Act, against the
judgment passed by the Ld. LA Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala, Tripura on
13.03.2024.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that the land of the appellant was
acquired by the L.A Collector. The said land was exchanged by the father of the
appellant from one son and one wife of the original owner Maidur Ali Master and
the predecessor of the respondent also got some land from the two sons and
another wife of the original owner. After the death of the father of the appellant the
said land was recorded in the name of the appellant and L.A Collector initially
passed the award in his favour. Thereafter, the respondent raised his claim
regarding the said acquired land. The L.A Collector referred the said case before
the learned L.A Judge under Section 30 of the L.A. Act. The learned L.A. Judge,
Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura, passed the Judgment declaring the Respondent as
the owner of the acquired land. Hence, this Appeal.
[3] Heard.
[4] In the present case in hand, both parties appeared before this court to
claim their respective shares, and the matter was referred under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition (LA) Act, 1894, to determine their proportionate shares. When
this issue came up for consideration before this court, both sides failed to present a
valid title deed that their predecessor had passed on to the present claimants. An
exchange deed cannot be treated as a title deed. Unless the owner has a valid and
alienable title, they cannot pass on a better title to third parties. Unless there is a
specific document to prove the alienable right, title and interest upon the said land,
it cannot be construed that the claimants are the lawful owners of the property and
are entitled for compensation.
[5] In light of this, it is immensely necessary for the trial court to examine
the matter based on the said title document and then decide the matter in
accordance with law. In the event that the parties claim any adverse title, it is
always open to them to take steps before the appropriate civil court on the point of
adverse possession.
[6] In view of the above observation, this court is of the opinion that
present matter be remanded back by setting aside the impugned order dated
13.03.2024 of the learned court below. The court below shall re-examine the
matter by giving opportunity to both sides for filing relevant documents and also
frame additional issues on alienable right, title and interest. The claimants shall
also produce any such document claiming them to be the lawfully owners of the
land in question by placing title deed, if any, and adduce evidence.
[7] With the above observation and direction, this present appeal is
remanded back and accordingly, the same is disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any,
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2025.08.07
16:36:47 +05'30'
