IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
NBCC (INDIA) Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector and Another - Respondents
L.A. App No. 10 of 2024
Decided On : 14-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent.
2. This present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 30-09-2022 in case No. L.A.(Ref) 123/2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura Judicial District, Belonia.
3. The case in brief is that, the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 acquired the land of the referring claimant for construction of Indo Bangla Boarder Fencing work for National interest of security and peaceful enjoyment Indian Nation. The L.A. Collector, South Tripura determined the value of the acquired land @ Rs.15,00,000/- per kani. Thereafter, the matter referred U/s 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 before the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge and according to the appellant herein, the learned Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the value of land from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.74,41,860/- per kani without assigning any justified reasons. The NBCC has challenged the said impugned enhanced amount by preferring the instant L.A.appeal before this Court seeking following reliefs:
(a) To admit the appeal;
(b) To send for records of case No. L.A. (Ref) 123/2019 from the file of Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura Belonia
(c) To issue notice upon the respondents;
(d) Upon hearing the par ties Your Lordship may set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 30-09-2022 in case No. L.A. (Ref) 123/2019 passed by the Ld. Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura Judicial District, Belonia...........”
4. Heard the submissions made at the Bar. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties that there was no material placed before the Court below while granting compensation and in similarly situated appeals, this Court remanded back such matters to the Court below giving liberty to the both sides to file relevant documents more particularly, claimants were asked to file title deeds of the ownership documents as khatians are only the revenue records and any entries therein, cannot be treated as sale-deed on the strength of which, it can be said that a person in possession claiming compensation is the real owner having alienable rights. Unless there is a specific document to prove the alienable right, title and interest upon the said land, it cannot be construed that the claimants are the lawful owners of the property and are entitled for compensation.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present matter be remanded back by setting aside the impugned order and award dated 30.09.2022 in case No. L.A.(Ref) 123/2019 passed by the learned Court of the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. The Court below shall re-examine the matter by giving opportunity to both sides for filing relevant documents and also frame additional issues on alienable right, title and interest. The claimants shall also produce any such document claiming them to be the lawful owners of the land in question by placing title deed, if any. The claimants are also at liberty to adduce any other relevant documents supporting their claim. Once the documents are placed on record, the Court shall expedite the matter.
6. It is needless to observe that in the event, if the land is acquired pertaining to the landlord, he is entitled for fair and even a generous compensation in a given circumstance, but 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. An unauthorized person cannot be paid a single rupee from the public money.
7. With the above observations and directions, this present appeal is remanded back and accordingly, the same is disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
Compensation for land acquisition requires valid ownership documents; unauthorized claimants are not entitled to compensation.
Compensation claims require valid proof of ownership and alienable rights; mere revenue records are insufficient.
Compensation for acquired land requires proof of valid ownership; mere revenue records are insufficient to establish alienable rights.
Valid ownership must be established for compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act; unauthorized claimants are not entitled to public funds.
Claims for enhancement of compensation in land acquisition require clear evidence of ownership and title, which was absent in this case.
Compensation for land acquisition requires valid ownership established through title-deeds; mere possession is insufficient.
The court can remand a case for a reasoned order if an error is identified, but cannot re-evaluate the merits of the case.
Compensation for land acquisition requires valid title deeds to establish lawful ownership; mere possession is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.