[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Namangi Choudhury vs Sri Kalipada Biswas on 9 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP 56 OF 2025
1. Sri Namangi Choudhury, son of lt. Afruchi Choudhury,
resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar,
District- South Tripura;
2. Sri Chaisafru Choudhury, son of Namangi Mog, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
3. Sri Mati Mog, son of lt. Kochi Mog Choudhury, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
4. Sri Chailafru Mog Choudhury, son of lt. Kochi Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
5. Smt. Uma Mog Choudhury, wife of Kyajaiu Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
6. Sri Kangjari Mog Choudhury, son of lt. Keuching Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
7. Sri Anu Choudhury, son of lt. Keuching Choudhury,
resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar,
District- South Tripura;
8. Sri Thaifru Mog Choudhury, son of lt. Doang Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
9. Sri Painu Mog Choudhury, son of Uchimong Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
10. Sri Angkyajai Mog Choudhury, son of Usi Mog
Choudhury, resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora,
Santirbazaar, District- South Tripura;
11. Smt. Mrachainda Mog, wife of lt. Apoya Mog, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
12. Smt. Ukrachu Mog, wife of lt. Angla Mog, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
13. Smt. Chinu Mog, wife of Mama Mog, resident of Jolaibari,
P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District- South
Tripura;
14. Smt. Umrachu Mog Tripura, wife of Thingjai Tripura,
resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar,
District- South Tripura;
Page 2
15. Sri Chafru Mog, son of Ugychai Mog, resident of Jolaibari,
P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District- South
Tripura;
16. Smt. Minu Mog, wife of Mongsajai Mog, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
17. Sri Apachi Mog, wife of lt. Ugyajai Mog, resident of
Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, Santirbazaar, District-
South Tripura;
----Second Party-Appellants
Versus
1. Sri Kalipada Biswas, son of late Jamini Kanta Biswas,
resident of Jolaibari, P.O. Jolaibari, P.S. Baikhora, District-South
Tripura;
.... First Party-Respondent
2. The ADM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.
---- Competent Authority
For Appellant(s) : Mr. DR Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate
Ms. S. Chaudhuri, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery : 09.03.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
This is an appeal preferred by the First Party-appellants
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.02.2025
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Tripura,
Belonia, in case No. NH(Ref.) 01 of 2022, for granting
apportionment of the award in 50% share each to the Second
party Appellants and First Party Respondent. In filing the appeal,
the following reliefs are sought for:
"..admit this Appeal and would very kindly set aside and quash the
impugned judgment and award granting 50% share of the
compensation to the First Party Respondent and would be so kind to
award the entire amount of compensation amounting of
Rs.23,10,169 along with other benefits as per provisions of NH Act
Page 3
read with section 187 of TLR & LR Act with interest at the rate of
10% per annum till the date of taking over possession of the
acquired land to the Second Party Appellants."
2. Facts of the case, as projected by learned trial court, in
short, is that, the competent authority has acquired a land
measuring 0.0501821 hector for the purpose of widening Jolaibari-
Belonia National Highway No.108(A) in terms of section 3A of NH
Act vide L.A. Case No. 02/STB/2020. After acquisition the
competent authority has awarded an amount of Rs.23,10,169/-
towards compensation in terms of section 3G of NH Act read with
section 37 of RFCTLARR Act. Since there was dispute as to the
apportionment of the amount of compensation so awarded, the
matter was referred to Principal Civil Court in South Tripura
District taking recourse to section 3H(4) of the NH Act. The First
party-petitioner, i.e. the respondent herein, claimed to have
purchased 0.150 decimal of land from a part of the acquired land
on the strength of an unregistered sale deed in 1968 and was in
possession thereof immediately before taking possession by the
acquiring department. Accordingly, name of the first-party
petitioner has been entered in column No.16 of the Record of
Right. The first-petitioner respondent contended that he has
constructed huts roofing with GCI sheets on the said part of
acquired land and his purchased area was also fenced with GCI
sheets. It was also contended that during survey, the competent
authority did not find the second-party-appellants in possession
thereof and, as such, the entire amount of compensation was paid
to the first-party-petitioner i.e. the respondent herein, but the
Page 4
second-party-appellants did not raise any objection. It is further
stated that earlier a part of land was acquired from the
predecessor of the second-party-appellants, namely, Afruchi
Choudhury vide LA case No.06/BEL/85 where the first party-
respondent being occupier thereon, compensation to the tune of
Rs.6,412.50/- was paid on 05.06.1986. The predecessor of the
second-party-appellants also did not raise objection to such
payment. It has been further stated that for the purpose of
construction of Jolaibari to Muhuripur road two other acquisition
were done and the first-party-respondent being in possession
thereof, compensation was paid to him. It is, therefore, stated that
title of the second-party-respondents over the acquired land
stands extinguished. On the other hand, the second-party-
appellants through their claim petition has contended that they are
indigenous people and belong to Scheduled Tribe community and
are entitled to restore the possession of land owned by them, if
occupied by persons who is not a Scheduled Tribe as per section
187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960,
herein after referred as TLR & LR Act. It is therefore stated that
the first-party-respondent not being a member of Scheduled Tribe
community occupied the acquired land and claiming unlawful
possession there-over in violation of provisions of TLR & LR Act.
The second-party-appellants claimed to have absolute title over
the acquired land and as such they are entitled to get the entire
amount of compensation so awarded by the competent authority.
Page 5
3. Heard Mr. DR Choudhury, learned senior counsel
assisted by Ms. S. Chaudhuri, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing
for the first party-respondent.
3. It is the contention made by the learned senior counsel
for the second party-appellants (appellants, for short), that the
predecessor of the appellants, being of tribal community, had been
cultivating over the acquired land since the era of Maharaja so the
property became beyond the ceiling limit and they have become
raiyati directly and got the khatian without any document and only
by a notification. It has also been submitted that the predecessor
of the appellants used to pay revenue to the Maharaja. He has
also contended that the learned court below violating the
mandatory provisions of section 46, Section 126, Section 134,
Section 135, Section 136, Section 137 of the TLR & LR Act. The
computerized has subsequently made after revised survey and
before that survey i.e. before 1956, the land was under possession
of the predecessor of the appellants named in the khatian. It has
further been submitted that the allotted khatian is not based on
any sale deed and the khatian itself has been given by the SDM
vesting allotment of the land to the person named in the khatian
in absence of any sale deed or any document. It is further
submitted that allotted khatian should be treated as point of title
and possession. He has further submitted that at no point of time
the appellants or their predecessor had transferred any portion of
Page 6
land to the respondent. Learned Counsel has also submitted that
the compensation has been passed violating the provisions of TLR
& LR Act and also the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Learned
counsel also has relied upon the decisions rendered by a learned
Single Judge of this High Court in Abdul Chattar Miah vs. State
of Tripura & ors, reported in 2021 (2) TLR 403; TLR Vol.2,
Part.
4. I have perused the entire record including the judgment
and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
5. At the very outset, this court is of the view that title
deed is a fundamental legal document required to prove ownership
of land, which is a crucial evidence that establishes a person's
right over a property. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge
has categorically observed that the 1st party petitioner i.e. the
respondent herein was in possession of the part of the acquired
land in total violation of the prohibitions contemplated under
Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act. In terms of Section 187 of the
Act. A member of a Scheduled Tribe cannot transfer land to a
non-ST person without the prior written consent of the Collector .
The learned trial Judge has further opined that the 2 nd party
petitioners i.e. the appellants herein, also did not raise any
objection prior to such acquisition and also did not apply for any
restoration of the acquired land. Neither the appellants nor the
respondent herein could establish their ownership right over the
acquired land. The burden of proof regarding ownership of the
Page 7
disputed/acquired land lies upon the appellants herein, which they
have failed to substantiate, either documentary or evidentiary.
There is no dispute that the respondent belongs to of non-tribal
community whereas the appellants are belongs to tribal
community. Further, from the record it is evidently clear that the
khatian (Exbt. A(i) to A(ii) proved by the appellants reflects the
name of the respondent herein to have entered his name in
column No. 16 against the acquired plot of land as a transferee in
terms of Section 187 of TLR & LR Act, and thereafter he has made
a structure on the said plot, so acquired. None of the parties could
establish their legal ownership by means of any title deed. For
convenience, Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act is reproduced
hereunder:
"187. Special provision regarding Scheduled Tribes.
No transfer of land by a person who is a member the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless-
(a)the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or
(b)where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of any such tribe, it is made with the
previous permission in writing of the Collector; or
(c)the transfer is by way of, mortgages to a co-operative society."
6. It is manifest, therefore, that the suit cannot be
decided without deciding the questions of fact noted above. The
trial court has rightly pointed out that the appellants herein cannot
produce any satisfactory evidence to prove their ownership by way
of any title deed nor the respondent herein can prove his title
though he was in possession on the part of the acquired land in
violation of Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act. Undisputedly no such
measurement was being carried out by the learned trial court to
examine the title deed prior to determining the compensation. In
this aspect, whatever learned senior counsel for the appellant has
Page 8
argued nothing has been reflected either in the pleadings nor
before the trial court. For the first time, he has advanced this
argument and without any documentary evidence. There is no
proper authority from the Government to acknowledge his
argument and even there is no issue under the statute. Further,
the appellants have not gone before the concerned Civil Court to
say that they are in adverse possession and whatever the
possession they are claiming and since there is no
acknowledgement or recommendation or appropriate order from
the appropriate court or authority, it cannot be said there the
appellants cannot be considered as raiyati and they are in adverse
possession and in turn their possessory right and interest is
involved. Thus, at this stage, this court is of the view that the
submission of learned senior counsel cannot be accepted and the
authorities rendered by learned senior counsel is not relatable to
the instant case. This court can keep it open that if they feel that
they are in long standing property, they are at liberty to approach
the Civil Court or any appropriate authority under the statute to
seek any remedy of apportionment of their land.
7. In Meher Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in
2025 INSC 407, it has been held that the court emphasized that
where the facts regarding possession and title are "shrouded in
mystery" or based on overruled legal precedents, the appellate
court should not decide the matter finally if the record is
insufficient".
Page 9
8. In Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. BSK Realtors LLP &
anr. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 370 (paras 7402 and 78), it has
been categorically held that the court emphasized that where the
facts regarding possession and title are "shrouded in mystery" or
based on overruled legal precedents, the appellate court should
not decide the matter finally if the record is insufficient".
7. Proving of ownership is essential for obtaining land
acquisition compensation, as compensation is only awarded to the
rightful owner under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short, RFCTLARR
Act, 2013). Here the appellants ought to have provided cogent
evidence to establish their title and ownership beyond just
registration. Before making a land acquisition award under the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the Collector must undertake several
mandatory steps to ensure that the process is lawful, transparent,
and fair and essentially and mandatorily the Collector shall verify
the ownership of land before making such award, particularly
under the Act, 2013, to avoid any litigation complicacy. Both TLR
& LR Act and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, share fundamental
similarities in the procedural approach of verifying land ownership
before passing an award. Admittedly, the names of the appellants
or their predecessor in this case have not been entered in the
revenue record, and they have not been able to show any right,
title or interest in the property and also that there is no
explanation from the appellants for not having raised their claims.
Page 10
Further, it is borne out from the materials placed on record that
before acquisition, the land in question has been occupied by the
respondent only by a structure violating the provisions of Section
187 of the TLR & LR Act and in that respect the appellants herein
failed to raise any objection to substantiate their ownership by
placing any documentary evidence.
8. In Meher Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in
2025 INSC 407, it has been held that the court emphasized that
where the facts regarding possession and title are "shrouded in
mystery" or based on overruled legal precedents, the appellate
court should not decide the matter finally if the record is
insufficient". Further, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. BSK Realtors
LLP & anr., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 370, it has been held that
compensation is only payable to those who have a "valid and
legal" title at the time of Section 4 notification". In the case in
hand, it is evidently clear that the appellants have miserably failed
to establish their ownership over the acquired land by producing
valid and legal title deed.
9. In the upshot, the instant appeal stands dismissed
which is devoid of merits.
10. However, the appellants are at liberty to avail statutory
remedies ventilating their grievances before the appropriate Civil
Court. It is made clear that on filing of any such petition, learned
trial court shall frame an issue on the point of title deeds to decide
the ownership and thereafter give an opportunity to both sides
Page 11
and decide the matter by adducing evidences as per procedure.
The appellants are also at liberty to produce their original
documents to substantiate their ownership in respect of their case.
It goes without saying that if the appellants are able to establish
their locus standi and/or title, and they are found entitled to
receive compensation on the basis of a valid title, they would be
entitled to the same, but if they fail to prove their ownership, they
shall not be paid a single rupee from the government exchequer,
as no unauthorized person is entitled for any bonanza.
11. It is further made clear that till any decision is taken by
learned trial court in respect of the share, the amount already
decided shall not be disbursed because it is public money and the
same shall be protected lawfully.
12. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.03.12
18:23:33 -04'00'
