[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Sukumar Chakraborty vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 5 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 61/2026
1. Sri Sukumar Chakraborty, son of late Chintaharan
Chakraborty, resident of West Pratapgarh, Kabirajtila, P.O.+ PS-
A.D. Nagar,Pin-799003, District- West Tripura.
2. Sri Subhash Chakraborty, son of late Chintaharan
Chakraborty, resident of West Pratapgarh, Kabirajtila, P.O.+ PS-
A.D. Nagar,Pin-799003, District- West Tripura.
3. Sri Sukhen Chakraborty, son of late Chintaharan
Chakraborty, resident of Uttar Chandrapur, P.O. South
Chandrapur PS- Radhakishorepur, District- Gomati, Tripura.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Land Acquisition Collector, District-Gomati Tripura,
Udaipur, PO Radhakishorepur-799120.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction-1, NF Railway,
Agartala-799003, Tripura.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DK Das Chawdhury, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 05.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
05/02/2026
Heard Mr. DK Das Chawdhury, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned
Deputy SGI, appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. P.
Gautam, learned Senior GA appearing for the State-respondent.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit this petition;
(ii) Issue notice upon the Respondents;
(iii) Call for relevant documents from possession of the respondent-1 if
considered necessary;
(iv) Issue writ of Certiorari asking the respondent-1 to show cause as to why
his decision dated 22.05.2025 passed in case No. 23/2021 U/S 28A of the L A
Act, 1894 shall not be quashed;
(v) Issue writ of mandamus asking the respondent-1 to show cause as to why
he shall not refer the case of the petitioner to Learned L A Judge, District
Gomati for redetermination of compensation of the acquired land of the
petitioner taking into consideration the award dated award dated 23.08.2019
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in case No. LA Appeal 63/2017;
(vi) After hearing the parties Hon'ble High Court be pleased to make the
rules absolute in terms of items (iv) and (v) above."
3. The facts of the case, lies in a narrow compass, is that
the an area of 0.50 acre land within plot no. 861 recorded in
Khatian No. 166 of Mouza-Uttar Chandrapur belonging to the
petitioners was acquired vide notification No. 09(2)/REV/ACQ/IX/
2010 dated 28.01.2010 under section 17(4) of the LA Act, and
vide notification No. REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 06.02.2010 under
section 6 of the LA Act for construction of Railway line from
Agartala to Sabroom by the Government. The respondent-1
awarded compensation determining the price of land @ Rs.
90,000/- only per kani in LA Case No. 23/2021. The petitioner
received the compensation with objection. Learned LA Judge,
Gomati, Tripura in case No. Misc. (LA) 85 of 2014 under same
notification enhanced compensation by his award dated
30.07.2016 determining the price of land @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per
Kani for the acquired land. The respondent 2 challenged the said
award dated 30.07.2016 by filing an appeal before this Hon'ble
High Court which was registered as L.A. Appeal No. 63/2017 and
this Hon'ble High Court modified the award passed by learned LA
Judge and re-determined the price of land @ Rs.6,00,000/- per
Kani vide Order dated 23.08.2019, to be paid to the petitioners
within three months from the date of passing of the order. After
the statutory period, the petitioners on 14.10.2019 submitted an
application to the respondent-1 for enhancement of
compensation for their acquired land in pursuance of the Order
dated 23.08.2019 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. Vide Order
dated 22.05.2025, the respondent-1 rejected the prayer for
enhancement of compensation. Subsequently, the petitioners
submitted an application on 30.06.2025 to the respondent-1
requesting him to refer the case to Ld. L A Judge, Gomati, as per
provisions of section 28A of the LA Act, 1894, but till date the
respondent-1 did not refer the case to the learned LA Judge,
Gomati. Since the matter is pending with the respondents, the
petitioners are before this Court.
4. The only contention of Mr. Das Chawdhury, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the by application
dated 30.06.2025, the petitioners raised their grievances to the
respondents, but till date the same has not been addressed to.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has in all fairness
submitted to pass appropriate order.
6. This court has perused the record and also has gone
through the correspondences made therein. It is not indicated
anywhere in the proceedings in which manner the petitioners are
owners of the said property and title deeds are also not placed on
record. It is also not known as to how the petitioners have
satisfied the respondents in respect of the title deeds for getting
the award. That apart, in respect of the compensation i.e. the
award, this court expressed its opinion that in any manner
wherever a genuine lawful owner has given his land for
acquisition purpose for public utility is entitled for better
compensation and may be generous compensation, but in the
event if the claimant is not the owner, and only on the strength
of any revenue records or khatians, cannot be treated as a owner
and such persons needs to be treated as an unauthorized
occupant and is not entitled for a single rupee. This court has
expressed its opinion in several judgments pertaining to Land
Acquisition compensation matters.
However, without entering into the merits of the writ
petition with the observations made here-in-above, this Court
directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in
respect of their application dated 30.06.2025, provided the same
in accordance with Section 28-A of the LA Act, and in the event,
if the application is not in terms of Section 28-A of the LA Act,
the same be indicated to the petitioners in order to again
represent, if they are entitled to. Any such decision be taken
within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of passing of this
order. This court hopes and trusts that the respondents shall
definitely dispose the application of the petitioners with a
reasoned order in the light of the observations made above.
The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
manner.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.02.09
21:51:41 -08'00'
