JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged order dated 29.11.2007, passed by L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No. Misc.1/2007, under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A. S. Lodh for the respondent No.1, L.A. Collector. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2 in spite of a specific order passed on 27.07.2016 that if there is no representation on behalf of the respondents the writ petition will be heard and disposed of on the basis of the pleadings and submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Facts, in short, necessary for disposal of this writ petition is that land belonged to respondent No.2, Nivedita Roy situated at Mouja Kunjaban was acquired for Army project by notification followed by declaration issued in the year 1983 and compensation was determined by the L.A. Collector and was paid to the land holder i.e. the respondent No.2. 4. On 15.12.1992 respondent No.2 Nivedita Roy submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector){here-in-after mentioned as respondent No.1} under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act seeking re-determination of compensation referring to judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed by the then Gauhati High Court in FA 86 of 1989. 5. The L.A. Collector on the basis of that petition of the respondent No.2, Nivedita Roy, made under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, pursuant to the judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed in F.A.86/1989 re-determined the compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani as was determined by the High Court in F.A. 86/1989. 6. The contention of the writ petitioner, Union of India is that judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed in F.A. 86/89 was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP No.5692-93 of 1991 with Civil Appeal No. CC 22133 of 1996 and by order dated April 18,1996 the Apex Court set aside the judgment and order dated 16.09.1992 passed by the High Court in F.A. No.86/89. Though that fact was brought to the notice of the L.A. Collector at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, the L.A. Collector passed order directing re-determination of compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani as was directed by the High Court in First Appeal No.86/89. 7. Though that fact was brought to the notice of the L.A. Collector at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, the L.A. Collector passed order directing re-determination of compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani as was directed by the High Court in First Appeal No.86/89. 7. Copy of the petition filed by respondent no.2, Nivedita Roy, under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The said petition reveals that the land holder i.e. the respondent No.2, Nivedita Roy, prayed for redetermination of compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani simply based on judgment dated 16.09.1992, passed in First Appeal No.86/89. A Copy of the judgment and order dated 16.09.1992 is also annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which shows that based on some other award passed in Case No. Misc.(LA) 51/86 and Misc.(LA) 160/87 the High Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani. As it appears, the respondent-land holder did not pray for re-determination pursuant to the award passed in Case No. Misc. (LA) 51/86 or Misc.(LA) 160/87. The petition of Smt. Nivedita Roy, respondent No.2 simply refers to judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed by the High Court in First Appeal No.86/89 and based on that judgment alone she prayed for re-determination of compensation. 8. Copy of the judgment and order, dated 18.04.1996, passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.5692-93 of 1991 and Civil Appeal Nos. CC 22133/1996, makes it abundantly clear that the judgment, dated 16.09.1992, passed in FA 86/89, was set aside by the Apex Court and the case was remanded back to the reference Court. The order passed by the Apex Court reads as follows:- “Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter is covered by a previous order of this Court dated July 25, 1995 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5559-60/94 and batch. Following the said order, the awards of the reference Court in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5692-93/94 and appeals arising out of the judgment of the High Court in F.A.No.87/89 and 86/89, dated September 16, 1992 which followed the award of the reference Court in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5692-93/94 stand set aside. Following the said order, the awards of the reference Court in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5692-93/94 and appeals arising out of the judgment of the High Court in F.A.No.87/89 and 86/89, dated September 16, 1992 which followed the award of the reference Court in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5692-93/94 stand set aside. The cases are remitted to the reference Court which would give opportunity to the parties including the Union of India to adduce evidence afresh. The reference Court, thereafter would consider and dispose them of according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the reference Court on May 25,1996. We are informed that the compensation amount determined in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.5692-93/94 has already been paid. The payment will be subject to the order that may be passed by the reference Court. But, in the meanwhile, recovery should not be made. Appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.” 9. While the Supreme Court’s order was brought to the notice of the L.A. Collector, he was not supposed to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act taking into consideration the judgment dated 16.09.1992 passed in F.A.86/89 since on the date of passing of the order by the L.A. Collector, the existence of judgment dated 16.09.1992 was not there having it was set aside by the Apex Court on 18.04.1996. The L.A. Collector passed the impugned order on 29.11.2007 i.e. admittedly after the Apex Court’s order and therefore, it is abundantly clear that the L.A. Collector acted beyond his jurisdiction and flouted the order passed by the Apex Court. While the High Court’s order has been interfered by the Apex Court, the L.A. Collector was not supposed to pass an order re-determining compensation based on the order passed by the High Court in First Appeal. 10. Therefore, I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the order, dated 29.11.2007, passed by the L.A. Collector in Case No. Misc.1/2007, under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, was absolutely beyond jurisdiction and hence, the order is set aside and quashed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.