Tripura High Court
The Member Dy. Secretary(I/C) vs . on 28 May, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA APP NO. 06 OF 2025
The Member Dy. Secretary(I/C)
Vs.
Sri Sribash Ch. Sarkar and anr.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. De, Advocate.
Mr. M. Deb Roy, Advocate.
Mr. S. Das Deb, Advocate.
28.05.2025
Order
This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Award
dated 06.04.2022 passed in Misc. LA 172 of 2016 by the
learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura,
Agartala.
2. The case arises from a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning
compensation for 0.0350 acre of land acquired by the Land
Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, for the construction of
Vigyan Gram (Science City). The L.A. Collector valued the land
at Rs. 57,00,000/- per kani and awarded Rs. 6,63,450/- as
compensation. The claimant (Respondent No. 1) contested the
valuation, asserting that the land, located in a prime
commercial area of Agartala with modern amenities and good
connectivity, was worth Rs. 2,50,00,000/- per kani. The
Collector defended the award as fair and in line with prevailing
market rates. However, the learned Land Acquisition Judge,
by judgment dated 06.04.2022, enhanced the compensation
by fixing the land value at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- per kani, leading
to the present appeal.
3. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel,
assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted before this Court that the Court below
did not consider the title of the claimant, and based the award
solely on the statements made before the learned Land
Acquisition Collector. When the matter was brought before the
Land Acquisition Judge seeking enhancement under the
statute, the Judge enhanced the compensation amount
exorbitantly without being satisfied regarding the claimant's
alienable right, title, and interest. It was further contended
that the documents exhibited before the learned Court below
do not justify such enhancement. Accordingly, the learned Sr.
counsel prayed for setting aside the enhancement order
passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and allowing the
present appeal.
4. On the contrary, Mr. A. De, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-claimant, submitted that the
scope of the present case before this Court is very limited.
According to him, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the "LA Act"), it is not appropriate for the
authority to argue that the Court below failed to examine the
title or ownership documents. He prayed that the case be
confined strictly within the scope of Section 18 of the LA Act,
and that the appellant's case be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for both
parties.
6. This Court has recently come across several
instances in land acquisition matters in the State of Tripura
where compensation has been awarded solely on the basis of
the Land Acquisition Collector's report, without examining title
deeds. It is surprising that no finding, report, or document
was placed before this Court or before the L.A. Collector to
establish that the title deeds regarding ownership and
possession were properly examined. A revenue record (i.e.,
khatian) alone cannot prove that the person in possession and
claiming compensation is the real owner with alienable rights.
Without a specific document proving alienable right, title, and
interest over the land, it cannot be presumed that the
claimants are lawful owners entitled to compensation.
7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to
accept the submission advanced by Mr. D. Bhattacharjee,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and rejects
the submission made by Mr. A. De, learned counsel for the
claimant-respondent.
8. Though this is a reference case under Section
18 of the LA Act, it is necessary to emphasize that a person,
even if entitled to compensation, must first establish
ownership. Making payments to unauthorized persons would
be contrary to law. Whether under Section 18 of the LA Act or
through determination by the Collector, compensation paid
without proof of ownership becomes an unjustified payment.
9. In light of the above observations, this Court
finds merit in the submissions made by Mr. D. Bhattacharjee,
learned senior counsel, and remands back the present case by
setting aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 of the
learned Court below. The Court below is directed to re-
examine the matter, providing both parties an opportunity to
file relevant documents, and to frame additional issues
concerning alienable right, title, and interest. The claimant
shall also produce any document establishing lawful ownership
of the land in question, such as a title deed. The claimant is
further at liberty to adduce any other supporting documents.
It is made clear that khatian cannot be treated as a title deed
as it do not confer any title and cannot be treated as title
deed. It is only an entry in revenue record and a supporting or
secondary document. On the strength of the khatian entries
no compensation can be awarded. Upon hearing both sides,
the learned Court below shall fix the quantum of
compensation and may also determine whether enhancement
is justified. Needless to say, since the matter has already been
considered once, it is expected that the Court below shall
dispose of the matter expeditiously.
10. With the above observations and directions,
the present appeal is remanded back and accordingly disposed
of. As a consequence, any interim stay stands vacated.
Pending applications, if any, also stand closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.05.30 11:38:49
SINGHA +05'30'
