SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Tri) 43

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
 
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction –II) - Appellant
Versus 
Smt. Sumati Das @ Sumita Das, W/o. Tapan Das and Ors. – Respondents 
LA.App No. 22 of 2024
Decided On : 30-01-2025
 
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy.SGI.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.S. Debnath, Advocate

Compensation for acquired land requires proof of valid ownership; mere revenue records are insufficient to establish alienable rights.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1984 - Section 54 and Section 18 - Appeal against compensation awarded for acquired land - The Land Acquisition Collector initially awarded compensation at Rs. 5,50,000 per kani, which was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge to Rs. 7,50,000 per kani - The court emphasized the necessity of proving alienable rights to claim compensation, stating that mere revenue records do not establish ownership - The matter was remanded for further examination of ownership documents. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Compensation - The court reiterated that compensation must be awarded only to lawful owners with valid titles, and unauthorized claimants are not entitled to compensation from public funds. (Paras 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for railway construction, arguing that the claimants did not provide sufficient proof of ownership. The initial compensation was set at Rs. 5,50,000 per kani, later increased to Rs. 7,50,000 per kani by the Land Acquisition Judge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the claimants must provide valid ownership documents to establish their entitlement to compensation, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings to allow for the submission of such documents.

Issues: The main issues included whether the claimants could prove their ownership and entitlement to compensation based on the documents provided.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without valid alienable rights, claimants cannot be compensated, emphasizing the need for proper documentation to establish ownership. The court also noted that compensation should not be awarded to unauthorized claimants. (Paras 5, 7)

Result: Appeal remanded for further examination.

JUDGMENT :

T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No.1.

[2] This present appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 passed in L.A (Ref) No.06 of 2020 by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.

[3] The case in brief is that, as per the requisition of the Appellant the land of the respondent-claimant, here-in-after referred to as the respondents, situated under Mouja-Sarashima, Sub-Division-Belonia, recorded in Khatian no.2010, C. S. Plot No. 1433/6425/p land measuring 0.22 acres, of land was acquired by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia vide notification dated 06.07.2011 for construction of New Railway line from Agartala to Sabroom. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, South Tripura, Belonia, has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 5,50.000.00 per kani. That, thereafter the matter was referred to the court of learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, under Section 18 of the L.A. Act thereafter, the L. A. Judge by its judgment dated 25.01.2023 enhanced the amount of award @ Rs. 7,50,000.00 per kani.

The relevant portion of the judgment and award dated 25.01.2023 in LA (Ref) No. 06 of 2020 is extracted hereunder:

AWARD

11. The claimants shall get compensation for the acquired land at the enhanced rate @ Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupess Seven lakhs fifty thousand) perkani. The claimants shall also get compensation in enhanced rate @ Rs.10,000/- per Rubber tree for 4 Nos. of 10 years old Rubber trees and @ Rs.300/- per Rubber trees for 10 Nos. of 1 year old Rubber trees. The claimants are also entitled to all other admissible statutory benefits. The claimants will also get Rs. 1000/- as cost under section 27 of the Act. The Opposite Parties are liable to make the payment…...”

[4] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 25.01.2023 passed in Misc L.A (Ref) No.06 of 2020 by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia ,the appellant herein approached this court 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 25.01.2023 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia shall not be set-aside;

(iii) Call for the records of case no. L.A. (Ref) 06 of 2020 from the court of the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.

AND

(iv) After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2023 passed in L.A. (Ref) 06 of 2020 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.

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……”

[5] 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.

[6] In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present matter be remanded back by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed in L.A (Ref) No.06 of 2020 by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top