The Deputy Chief Engineer(Con-2) vs .
2025 Latest Caselaw 725 Tri

Tripura High Court

The Deputy Chief Engineer(Con-2) vs . on 22 August, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                    Page 1 of 2




                            HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                  AGARTALA
                              LA APP NO.38 OF 2025

     The Deputy Chief Engineer(CON-2)
     Vs.
     Smt. Ratna Tripura and ors.

                HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

     Present:
     For the Appellant(s)           : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
     For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. G.A.

22.08.2025

Order

1. This present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1984, against the Judgment and Award dated 17.10.2023 passed in C.M. (L.A.) 14 of 2022 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, as per the requisition of the appellant, the land of the respondent-claimant was acquired by respondent-Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, vide notification dated 07.01.2013, for construction of the New Railway Line from Agartala to Sabroom. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, South Tripura, Sabroom, awarded compensation @ Rs.3,30,000/- per kani for the acquired land.

3. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondents filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, seeking reference of the matter to the L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom. Thereafter, the learned L.A. Judge, upon hearing both parties, by Judgment dated 17.10.2023, allowed the claim petition and

enhanced the award of compensation @ Rs.12,00,000/- per kani. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Earlier, notices were issued in the matter. From the record, it is seen that notices were duly served and, accordingly, the condonation application was allowed. Now, when the matter is listed for admission, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI, appears for the appellant, and upon instruction, Mr. P. Gautam, learned Sr. G.A., appears for the official respondent.

5. After hearing and perusing the record, it is seen that no specific issue was framed for settling the compensation amount in favour of the alleged owners. In the absence of any title deed, ownership cannot be decided solely on the oral claim of the self-claimed owners. The compensation amount cannot be determined, nor can it be disbursed merely on the strength of the Khatian, which is only an entry in the revenue records and does not confer title.

6. This Court, in identical matters, has taken the above view and decided several such cases by remanding the appeals to the concerned Court, directing it to frame an issue on the point of ownership and title, and thereafter to give opportunity to both sides and decide the matter as per law. On the same line, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned L.A. Judge, and the matter is remanded back accordingly.

7. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.

                                                                         DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J




        Suhanjit


SABYASACHI         Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
                   GHOSH
GHOSH              Date: 2025.08.25 15:15:28 +05'30'