[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer ... vs Sri Ratan Natta on 23 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
L.A. APP 8 OF 2026
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura
----Appellant-Opposite Party
Versus
1. Sri Ratan Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
2. Sri Sankar Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
3. Sri Dilip Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur,
P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
4. Sri Rupak Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
5. Sri Goutam Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
6. Smt. Mira Rani Natta, wife of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
7. Smt. Bina Natta, daughter of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
8. Smt. Malina Natta, daughter of lt. Manik Natta, resident of
Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala;
All are represented by Sri Ratan Natta by way of Power
of Attorney.
.... Respondent-Claimants
9. Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala (now
Sepahijala District, Bishramganj)
---- Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr, GA
Mr. R. Paul, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery : 23.03.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-opposite
party being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
27.09.2022 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge,
Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 289 of
Page 2
2016, whereby the amount of compensation has been further
enhanced by the learned L.A. Judge. In filing the appeal, the
appellant-opposite party has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit the instant appeal;
(ii) Issue notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned
judgment/award dated 27.09.2022 passed in Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2016 by the learned L.A.
Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh shall not be set-aside;
(iii) Call for the records of case no. Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2016 from the court of the learned L.A.
Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh.
AND
(iv) After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award
dated 27.09.2022 passed in Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2014 by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala
District, Bishalgarh
AND
(v) Pass any other order/orders and/or direction/ directions as may deem fit and proper
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing
for the appellant-opposite party. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam,
learned senior GA appearing for respondent no.9 and Mr. R. Paul,
learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.
3. It is the contention made by the learned counsel for the
appellant-opposite party, Mr. Majumder, Dy. SGI, that the Court
below has not considered or framed any issue on the point as to
whether the claimant-respondents are entitled to seek the
compensation. No title deed nor any document in support of their
claim has been placed on record, and no such exhibit has been
marked nor any evidence was addressed except relying on the
khatians and the same cannot be treated as title deed. He further
placed reliance on several judgments passed by this Court wherein
this Court in all matters disposed of the appeals by setting aside
the order passed by the L.A. Judge remanding the same to the
concerned Court directing the L.A. Judge to reconsider the matter
by framing an issue on the point whether the claimants are owners
Page 3
of the subject lands and did they prove their ownership by placing
oral and documentary evidence, and pass similar order by
disposing of the appeal.
4. The counsel for the respondent in all fairness submits
that he has placed before the court the khatians and would place
the documents in respect of their claim before the learned trial
Court, and sought for permission of this Court to file all such
relevant documents.
5. I have perused the entire record including the judgment
and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel of
both sides, this Court considering the earlier judgments passed in
the matters of similar in nature dispose the present appeal by
setting aside the Order passed by the trial Court and remand the
matter back directing the L.A. Judge to frame an issue on the
point of title deeds to decide the ownership and thereafter give an
opportunity to both sides and decide the matter by adducing
evidences as per procedure. It is pertinent to note that this Court
is of the opinion that in the event if the land-owner is found to be
looser of land in the process of acquisition, he has to be
appropriately compensated, but in the event, if the person
claiming compensation fails to prove his ownership, he shall not be
paid a single rupee from the government exchequer, as no
unauthorized person is entitled for any bonanza.
7. In view of the above, the judgment and award dated
27.09.2022 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District,
Page 4
Bishalgarh, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 289 of 2016, is set aside, and
the matter is remanded back.
8. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed. As a sequel,
pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT Digitally signed by
SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2026.03.27
18:06:25 -04'00'
