AGARTALA, India, Feb. 24 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Jan. 22:

[1]Heard.

[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and award dated 15.09.2023 passed in CM L.A. 70 of 2022 by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom.

[3] The facts in brief are that, as per the requisition of the appellant, the land of the respondent-claimant, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, vide notification dated 07.01.2013 for construction of 'New Railway line from Agartala to Sabroom'. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, South Tripura, Belonia has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 3,30,000.00 lacs per kani for the land acquired. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent, filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, for referring the matter to the L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom and accordingly, the same was referred to the court of learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom. Thereafter the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom after hearing both the parties, by its judgment dated 15.09.2023 has allowed the claim petition enhancing the award of compensation.

[4] Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the same, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court for redress.

[5] This Court has come across recently in many instances of land acquisition matters in the State of Tripura where even without examining the title deeds and also on the strength of the L.A. Collector's report, compensation has been awarded. It is strange to learn that there is no finding, any report or any document to place before this Court or before the learned L.A. Collector to show that the L.A. Collector has examined the title deeds with regard to the ownership and also the possession of the claimant. On the strength of the revenue record (i.e. the khatian), it cannot be said that the persons in possession and claiming the compensation are the real owners having alienable right. 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 observation, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the present matter is remitted back by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom and accordingly, the same is ordered. The competent authority shall reexamine the matter by giving opportunity to both sides for filing relevant documents and mark exhibits and also frame additional issues on the alienable right, title and interest. The claimant shall also produce any such document claiming to be the lawful owner of the land in question by placing title deed, if any. The claimants are also at liberty to adduce any other relevant documents in support of their claim.

[7] In that view of the matter, the present appeal is remanded back and is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x6rEh5PMcW5VQlXi%2BLW3y3mR%2FLsz%2BgQFco82S62B7GGe&caseno=LA.App./69/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010010272025&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.