Tripura High Court
Smt. Surabhi Jamatia vs The State Of Tripura And Another on 20 January, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 762 of 2024
Smt. Surabhi Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 763 of 2024
Sri. Sarma Dayal Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 764 of 2024
Mr. Bijoy Lal Debbarma
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 765 of 2024
Shri Mangal Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 766 of 2024
Smt. Kanak Lata Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 767 of 2024
Mr. Amulya Debbarma
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 768 of 2024
Mr. Sukumar Debbarma
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 769 of 2024
Mr. Amar Singh Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
WP(C) 770 of 2024
Mr. Bichitra Sadhan Jamatia
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Another
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P Rathor,. Advocate.
Mr. Babita Debbarma, Advocate.
Mr. Nanda Gopal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA.
Mr. Kohinnor N.Bhattacharjee, GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
20.01.2025
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
[2] At the very outset, it is represented by the counsel for the petitioners
that since the subject matter of all the writ petitions mentioned above came out
the similar facts and circumstances, all may be heard and disposed of together.
Having heard so, all the matters are clustered together as the facts involved are
similar in nature and can be disposed of a common judgment.
[3] This is a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for
seeking the following relief(s):
a. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to
proceed as per statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
respect of land of the petitioner acquired for public purpose and direct
the respondents to refer the matter to L.A. Judge as per provision of
section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period fixed by the
Hon'ble Court.
b. After hearing the parties to pass any other order or orders as may be
deemed fit and proper for the end of justice.
[4] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner in
Title and possession of the acquired Land. The respondents for the purpose of
construction of approach road towards new capital Complex near Gowala Basti
Agartala for public purpose had acquired the land of the petitioner. The
respondent no.2 in the course of processing the acquisition process had passed an
award in the name of one Smt. Shyama Debbarma, the pre-decessor-in- interest of
the petitioner and other claimants and unable to decide who is entitled to the
initial award had deposited the awarded compensation before L.A Judge, West
Tripura, Agartala and referred the matter to L.A. Judge, W. Tripura, Agartala.
The petitioner along with other petitioners filed an application before the
permanent Lok Adalat, Agartala and the said authority by its order directed the
petitioner and other claimants to approach the L.A. Judge (Addl. District Judge,
Court no.2) West Tripura, Agartala to be added as a party in the section 30 of
L.A. Act petition. The L.A. Judge (Addl. District Judge, Court no.2) West
Tripura, Agartala after recording of evidence came to the conclusion that
petitioner along with other claimants are the owner in title to the extent of their
share of the acquired land and are entitled to the compensation to the extent of
their respective share. The petitioner accepted the award compensation to the
extent of his share under protest and filed a prayer for reference as per section 18
of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 on 08/09/2022 and also a reminder dt:12-06-
2023. Inspite of filing the prayer for reference to the collector West Tripura more
than 2 (two) years ago, the respondent did not refer the matter to the L.A. Judge,
West Tripura and inspite of several visit by the petitioner to the office of the
respondent no.2. The petitioner having found the respondents inactive in
performing their statutory duties under compulsion to redress his grievances
approached this Court for seeking relief(s).
[5] On the contrary, it is represented by the counsel for the respondents
that the petitioner has no locus standi over the case and further prayed to dismiss
the petition.
[6] Heard both sides.
[7] 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 and title. Unless there is
a specific document (i.e. title deed, sale deed or any legal document, succession
certificate obtained from court of law) 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.
[8] Since the matter is related to the public money, it should reach to
the hands of the lawful or the authorized owner. If the same is disbursed to the
unauthorized person, there will be great deficit in the public exchequer.
[9] Though it is a case under reference under Section 18 of the LA Act,
it becomes necessary to note that if a person who is a land lord, is entitled for
compensation may be more generously. But unless the ownership is proved,
making a payment to unauthorised person seems contrary to law. In such cases,
whether it falls under Section 18 of the LA Act or the compensation can be
determined by the LA Collector, the amount that would be awarded to the
claimant(s) becomes an unjust payment.
[10] While taking a decision upon Section 18 of LA Act applications,
the concerned authority, if forwarding the matters to the concerned LA Court,
shall sensitize the LA court about the issue to be framed as title deeds as observed
by this court while enclosing a copy of this judgment.
[11] In view of the above observation, 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 deeds. 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. Upon hearing the both sides, the
learned court below shall fix the quantum of compensation or even enhancement
of the compensation payable to the claimant may also be fixed. It is made clear
that entries/names of claimants in Khatian cannot be treated as title deed. Entries
in khatian are only revenue records but it does not confer title.
[12] The respondents to consider the application under section 18 of LA
Act as expeditiously as possible in terms of the above observation.
[13] With the above observation and direction, the present writ petitions
are disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s),
if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK DAS Date: 2025.01.22
