Tripura High Court
Sri Suresh Ch. Debnath vs The Land Acquisition Collector And Anr on 13 February, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP NO.110 OF 2023
Sri Suresh Ch. Debnath
......Appellant(s)
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector and anr.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy SGI.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 13.02.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : NO .
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present appeal has been filed under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Order XLI of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, for enhancement of the award dated
09.07.2021, passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia, in case No. L.A.(Ref) 17 of 2019, whereby the
learned L.A. Judge affirmed the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- per
kani, as awarded by the SDM, Belonia.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the respondents
herein, by way of Notification No. F.9(04)REV/ACQ/XII/2012, dated
28-04-2012, acquired a plot of land measuring 0.30 acres, classified
as 'Nal' class of land, under Mouja-Uttar Sonaichari and T.K.
Sarashima, vide Khatian No. 140, Plot No. 1833/2586/P. The said
plot of land, owned by the appellant-claimant, was acquired by the
Government of Tripura for the development of a new railway line
from Agartala to Sabroom. The L.A. Collector awarded
compensation at Rs.1,25,000/- per kani for the acquired land.
Dissatisfied with the said compensation amount, an appeal was filed
for enhancement of the award before the learned L.A. Judge, who
affirmed the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector. Being
aggrieved by the same, the claimant-appellant has filed this appeal
for enhancement of the impugned award dated 09.07.2021, passed
by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in L.A.(Ref)
No.17 of 2019.
3. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-claimant, as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned
Deputy SGI, appearing for the State-respondent.
4. The appellant has made a claim solely on the basis
of the khatian, which is a revenue record. The L.A. Collector,
according to the appellant, has paid the compensation amount. Not
being satisfied, the appellant approached the L.A. Judge, who
rejected the enhancement. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has
preferred this further appeal before this Court.
5. It is seen from the record that the appellant's claim
is based only on entries in the khatian, which is a revenue record
and not a 'title deed'. The Lower Court has also not framed any
issue on this point. No 'sale deed' or title documents have been
marked as exhibits, and there is no supporting evidence. The
appellant has also not categorically stated in the pleadings
regarding ownership and flow of 'title'. Since the appellant is not
entitled to claim the amount, the question of seeking any
enhancement does not arise. This Court is not convinced by the
claim made by the appellant. Accordingly, the case fails and is
dismissed.
6. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA
SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2025.02.15 13:05:43
+05'30'
