Tripura High Court
The Union Of India vs Sri Krishna Kumar Baishya on 29 January, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA.App 32 of 2024
The Union of India
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri Krishna Kumar Baishya
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majuder, Deputy SGI
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
29.01.2025
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 passed in Misc.(LA) 261 of 2016 by
the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that as per the requisition of the appellant
the land of the respondent- claimant, here-in-after referred to as the respondents,
situated under Mouja - Ramnagar Sheet No.2/p, recorded in Khatian No 1549, Plot No.
4300, land measuring 0.24 acres, classified as nal class of land was acquired by the
respondent no. 2 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura vide notification
dated 21.02.2011 for the purpose of establishment of BOP ACP of 6 Bn. BSF under
Sadar Sub-divisioin in West Tripura District. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, West
Tripura, has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 37,50,000/- per acre i.e. 15,00,000.00 per
kani. Thereafter, underSection 18 of LA.Act the matter has been referred to
LA.d.LA.Judge. Thereafter, the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, by its
judgment dated 21.07.2023 enhanced the amount of award passed by the learned L.A.
Collector, Agartala, West Tripura and the value of the land has been assessed @ Rs.
25,00,000/- per kani. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1
in case no. Misc L.A. 261 of 2016, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal
[3] Heard.
[4] 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.
[5] In view of the above observation, this court is of the opinion that present
matter be allowed and remanded back by setting aside the impugned order dated
21.07.2023 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.
[6] With the above observation and direction, this present appeal is allowed
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 DAS Date: 2025.01.29 17:07:49
