[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-2) N.F. ... vs Sri Tapan Malakar @ Tapan Chandra ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
LA. App.37 of 2025
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-2) N.F. Railway, Agartala, West
Tripura.
...............Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sri Tapan Malakar @ Tapan Chandra Malakar S/o Nanigopal
Malakar, resident of Paschim Jalefa, P.S Sabroom , P.O Jalefa Bazar,
Dist- South Tripura- 799145.
............Respondent- Claimant.
2. Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia.
.........Respondent.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. S.G.I.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. P. Shil, Advocate.
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
30.03.2026
[1] When the case is called , both parties are present before this Court.
[2] This present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2024
passed in CM (L.A.) No. 41 of 2022 seeking 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 17.01.2024 passed in CM L.A. 41 of 2022 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura,
Sabroom shall not be set-aside;
(iii) Call for the records of case no. CM. L.A. 41 of 2022 from the court of the learned L.A.
Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom.
AND
(iv) After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award
dated 17.01.2024 passed in CM L.A. 41of 2022 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura,
Sabroom;
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."
AND for this act kindness the humble appellant, as in duty bound shall ever pray."
[3] The brief facts of the case is that as per the requisition of
appellant, the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, has acquired "Khas"
land under Mouja West Jalefa, Sabroom Sub-Division for construction of 'New
Railway line from Agartala to Sabroom. Thereafter, at the instance of the
respondent- Claimant a reference has been made under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation awarded under
section 11of the Act with regard to the full damage of the standing rubber trees
planted in the Government khas Land under-West Jalefa, Sabroom revenue
Circle. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent-
claimant, filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, for
referring the matter to the L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom, for
determination of the proper damages of standing trees. Accordingly, the same
was referred to the court of learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom.
Finally, the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom, by its judgment dated
17.01.2024 has enhanced the value of trees and structures allowing the claim
petition. Thereafter, being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
17.01.2024 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in case
no. CM.LA. 41 of 2022, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before
this Court.
[4] Heard and perused the evidence on record.
[5] The appeal is filed by the appellant pointing out the infirmities
committed by the Trial Court that the compensation has been awarded without
framing an issue to the extent of deciding whether the respondent-claimant
is the lawful land owner to receive the said compensation or whether he is an
unauthorized person claiming for the compensation and, since, the matter was
not decided considering the said issue straightway the Court below has
awarded compensation and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed
making the submission as a major ground for consideration .
[6] Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in identical
matters number of such appeals were disposed of remanding the matter to the
Trial Court for framing an issue on the point of owner ship and then, to award
compensation upon the authorized person and prayed to remand the matter .
[7] Admittedly, in this appeal there is no issue framed as rightly
pointed out by the counsel for the appellant and there is no reasoning as per
the evidence that the respondent-claimant is the authorized person to receive
the compensation under the capacity of the lawful owner. This Court, in earlier
matters observed that if land of a lawful owner is acquired he is obviously
entitled for a generous compensation. Since, day by day the land is getting
extinguished and it is utilized for better purpose and benefit of the society. But,
at the same time this Court is of the view that unless it is decided that the
recipient of the claim-amount is holding a valid alienable title, it cannot be said
that he is entitled for claiming the compensation and any entry in the khatian
cannot be treated as document for ownership of the land and it is only an entry
in revenue records. An unauthorized person cannot be paid a single rupee from
the public exchequer.
[8] Accordingly, the matter needs to be remanded back and thus, the
present appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2024
passed by the Trial Court, to frame an issue on the point of owner ship and to
decide the case receiving documents, if any, and also the argument by giving
an opportunity to both sides as per procedure. The said decision be taken as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
[9] With the above observation and direction, the impugned order
dated 17.01.2024 passed in CM LA 41 of 2022 is set aside and the appeal is
remanded back and accordingly, the same is disposed of.
[10] As a sequel, stay if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Paritosh
SABYASAC by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2026.04.03
15:52:39 +05'30'
