[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Land Acquisition Collector vs Sri. Nepal Chandra Das @ Nepal Das on 26 February, 2026
-1-
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.17of 2026
Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura Belonia PO and PS
Belonia Dist South Tripura, Pin - 799155
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri. Nepal Chandra Das @ Nepal Das, son of Late Bhuban Das,
R.O: Vill: Manarmukh (Das Para) P.O: Sarasima P.S: Belonia, Dist:
South Tripura, Pin - 799155
2.The Dy. Chief Engineer (con) N F Railway,
through his Legally authorized/ empower representative of N.F
Railway Sri Abir Bhattacharjee SSE/ DRG/ Con/ AGTL vide
authorization /empowering letter no E/207/ Con/ A-S/ Court Case/
2025 Dated 09/08/2025.
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nitai Chowdhury, Advocate.
=B=E=F=O=R=E=
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
=O=R=D=E=R=
26.02.2026
Heard Ld. GA, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya for the
petitioner. Also heard Ld. Counsel, Mr. Nitai Chowdhury for the
respondent No.2.
[2] Respondent No.1 has yet not been notified.
[3] The Order dated 29.01.2026 passed in case no.
Execution(L.A)44 of 2020 by the Ld. LA Judge, South Tripura, Belonia
is under challenge in this case. By said order, Ld. LA Judge, with an
observation that the judgment debtor that is the present petitioner and
respondent 2 have willfully disobeyed the order made in terms of the
provision of Order XXI of Rule 41 (1) & (2) CPC, has passed the
impugned order under Order XXI Rule 41 (3) whereby direction has
been issued asking them to suffer civil imprisonment for 2 months.
Consequently, direction is also passed to issue warrants against both
of them. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed by the
petitioner, LA Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.
[4] Said order further shows that initially Ld. LA Judge,
passed an order directing them to furnish the particulars of their
assets to be attached in connection with the said Execution case
under provision of Order XXI Rule 41 sub-rule (1) of CPC, but, the
petitioner did not submit the same. Thereafter, the Court passed an
order asking the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate order
under Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC should not be passed against him.
No reply in this regard was also received from the petitioner by the
Court. Under such circumstance, Ld. LA Judge, thereafter, passed the
order under Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC, directing them to be put in
civil imprisonment for 2 months.
[5] Ld. GA Mr. Kohinoor N.Bhattacharyya, challenges the
order on two points- firstly, that the present respondent no.1 along
with his sister namely Swapna Das were joint owner of the acquired
land having 50% share each and therefore, the respondent no.1 is
entitled only to get 50% of the total awarded amount and he cannot
therefore, press in the execution petition for realization of further 50%
which falls within the share of Swapna Das. But the ignoring the said
fact, the Executing Court proceeded to execute the entire award
despite the fact that said Swapna Das has neither approached the
Executing Court for recovery of her share of compensation and also
has not filed any petition under Section 28(A) of the LA Act and
moreover, she also did not pray for any reference under Section 18 of
the LA Act; secondly, that the LA Collector is only the facilitator in
making the payment of the awarded compensation to the claimants
land losers and it is the requiring department, NF Railway, who is to
make the payment and therefore, according to Ld. GA, no coercive
action is sustainable against the LA Collector.
[6] During hearing Ld. GA, however, submits that so far his
knowledge as derived from the record goes, no such petition
challenging the maintainability of such execution proceeding, both on
the ground of discharge and satisfaction of the decretal amount with
respect to present awardee -respondent no.1 and also challenging
maintainability of the execution proceedings against the LA Collector
on the above said ground that LA Collector is simply a facilitator, were
not filed before the Executing Court. Ld. GA also submits that the
50% portion of the award to which the respondent no. 1 is entitled, is
already deposited in the Executing Court and therefore, the Execution
proceeding is not maintainable further.
[7] This Court has considered the impugned order passed by
Ld. LA Judge on 29.01.2026 and the submissions made by Ld. GA.
[8] So far the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41(1),(2) & (3) of
the CPC are concerned, prima facie, no impropriety or illegality is
found in the said impugned order.
[9] So far the issues raised before this Court in this petition
are concerned, it appears that the Executing Court did not get scope
to adjudicate all these issues as the same were not raised earlier
before said Court. In this circumstance, Ld. GA submits that he is
withdrawing this revision petition, provided liberty be granted to LA
Collector to file appropriate petition before Ld. Executing Court under
Section 47 or otherwise, raising all these issues and for recalling the
impugned order and for postponing the order of issuance of warrant
against the petitioner . Ld. GA also submits that, till said petition is
filed, the operation of the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by
the Ld. LA Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Execution(LA)No.44 of
2020 be stayed.
[10] Considered the submissions.
[11] Any order passed under Order XXI Rule 41, sub-
section(3) can be modified by Ld. Executing Court as the provision
itself envisages that before the expiry of the civil imprisonment Court
can direct release of any judgment debtor on any sufficient ground.
The order passed under sub-rule(3) is not punitive in nature; rather, it
is passed to compel the judgment debtor(s) to disclose their assets to
facilitate the execution proceeding. Once the assets are disclosed, the
Executing Court may also recall the order immediately.
[12] Situated thus, the present petition is disposed of on being
withdrawn by the petitioner giving liberty to them to approach the
Executing Court by filing appropriate application on the above said
grounds as indicated above, challenging the maintainability of the
execution proceeding etc., within 30 days from today. It is also
ordered that within said period of 30 days, the order dated 29.01.2026
will not be acted upon or enforced by Ld. Executing Court against the
petitioner.
After any such application is filed by the petitioner, Ld.
Executing Court will hear both the parties and decide the matter in
accordance with law. Needless to say, liberty will be there to the
petitioner to approach appropriate Forum again in accordance with
law, if they feel aggrieved by the decision of Ld. Executing Court in
this regard. As the revision petition is not admitted, the respondent
no.1 is not notified.
[13] With such observations and direction, the present revision
petition is disposed of.
Communicate a copy of this order to the Ld. Executing
Court immediately.
[14] Interim Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
JUDGE
MUNNA Digitally signed by MUNNA
SAHA
SAHA Date: 2026.02.26 19:34:41
+05'30'
Saikat Sarma
