Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Smti. Dipali Malakar And Another on 29 January, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
L.A. App. No.04 of 2024
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-1)
.....Appellant
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
Smti. Dipali Malakar and Another
.....Respondents.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. C. Deb, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
_F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
29.01.2025
Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned DSGI, appearing for the appellant
also heard Mr. D. C. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present appeal has been filed under Section-54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2020 passed in
Misc (LA) 193 of 2014 by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District,
Bishalgarh, Tripura.
[3] The facts in brief are 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- Brajapur, Tahasil- Brajapur Sheet No. 1/P, recorded in
Khatian no. 2174, C. S. Plot No 1873/9241, land measuring 0.04 acres, classified as
Bastu (Tilla) class of land was acquired by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Land
Acquisition Collector, West Tripura vide notification No. F.9 (33)-
REV/ACQ/XIV/09 dated 24.06.2011 for construction of 'New Railway line from
Agartala to Sabroom'. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, has awarded
the compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani.
[4] Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award dated
16.01.2020 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh,
Tripura, in case no. Misc (LA) 193 of 2014, the appellant has preferred the instant
appeal.
[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 L.A. 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 learned L.A. Collector to show
that the L.A. 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.
the 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 the
present matter be remanded back by setting aside the impugned order dated
16.01.2020 passed by the learned Court below. The Court below shall re-examine
the matter by giving opportunity to both sides for filing relevant documents and
mark exhibits and also frame additional issues on the alienable right, title and
interest. The claimant shall also produce any such document claiming him to be the
lawful owner of the land in question by placing title deed, if any. The claimant is
also at liberty to adduce any other relevant documents in support of his claim. Both
the parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps with regard to their pleadings
also.
[7] In that view of the matter, the present appeal is remanded back and is,
accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A. Ghosh
ANJAN ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH 15:39:53 +05'30'
