Tripura High Court
The Executive Officer vs Sri Chandan Kumar Roy And Ors on 14 February, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA.App 89 of 2023
With CO(FA) 18 of 2023
The Executive Officer,
Sonamura Nagar Panchayat,
Sonamura Sepahijala Tripura
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Chandan Kumar Roy and Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Sr.Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Asuthosh De, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
14.02.2025
This is an appeal under Article 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
agains the Judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition
Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijal District in case No.Misc(LA) 01 of 2019.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that for the public purpose namely for
"Construction of Samar Chowdhury Smriti Bidya Niketan", under Sonamuara Sub-
Division, District- Sepahijala, certain land is required. Accordingly, under due
process, land acquisition was initiated. While ascertaining compensation to the land
owner in this case, by way of 'Reference' under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, (for short, hereinafter referred as the 'L.A. Act') made by the L.A.
Collector, Sepahijala District, Sonamura, for determination of valuation of the
acquired land measuring 1.3800 Acres was assessed @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per Acre
along with solatium and interest and thereby calculated the amount of compensation
to the tune of Rs.9,75,631/- (Rupees nine lacs seventy five thousand six hundred
thirty one) only. By impugned judgment dated 19-04-2023 the Ld. L.A. Judge,
Sepahijala District, Sonamura, passed his verdict enhancing the market price of the
acquired land from Rs. 5,00,000/- per Acre to Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
lakhs) only per Acre.
[3] Being aggrieved, the instant Appellant (original Opposite Party no.1)
preferred this Appeal.
[4] Heard.
[5] This court has come across recently in many instances of Land
Acquisition matters in the state of Tripura where even without examining the title
deeds and also on the strength of the LA Collector's report, compensation has been
awarded. It is strange to learn that there is no finding, any report or any document to
place before this Court or before the LA Collector to show that the LA Collector has
examined the title deeds with regard to the ownership and also the possession of the
claimant. On the strength of the revenue record (i.e. khatian), it cannot be said that
the persons in possession and claiming the compensation are the real owners having
alienable right. 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.
[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
19.04.2023 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 claimant shall also
produce any such document claiming him to be the lawfully owners of the land in
question by placing title deed, if any. The claimant is also at liberty to adduce any
other relevant documents supporting his claim. It is needless to mention here that
once the documents are placed on record the learned court below shall expedite the
matter.
[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 DIPAK DAS
DAS 14:56:04 +05'30'
