Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 149 (TRI)

Bimal Chandra Sen v. State of Tripura

2022-03-23

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 1. The petitioner was the owner of .11 acres of land for which acquisition has taken place for construction of a Lay-Bye near Haripur Market on Belonia-Nalua Road under Belonia Sub-Division. Challenging the said acquisition notice himself, a writ petition had come to be filed by the petitioner registered as WP(C) No. 388 of 2013. This Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 18.03.2014 rejected the said writ petition and upheld the acquisition made and admittedly in the present case the compensation that was awarded in the land acquisition proceedings has also been released in favour of the writ petitioner. 2. In the present writ petition, the essential contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that although the land was acquired for the purported reasons for making a road Lay-Bye as noted hereinabove, part of the land had used by the village panchayat to construct shop rooms thereof. In response to such contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, a counter affidavit has come to be filed by the State. Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit is quoted as under: '10. That, with regards Para 9 of the petition, I submit that the land was acquired for the purpose for which it was so acquired. The role of the Revenue Department and the answering respondents was to acquire the land in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1984. There is no decision of the Revenue Administration to construct any stall in the Haripur Market on Lay Bye. The Revenue Department has not budgetary allocation also for the kind of purpose. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is misconceived so far answering respondents are concerned. However, after the receipt of notice of the writ petition the District Administration caused an enquiry and found that market stall has been constructed in one end side of the lay bye road and the same was constructed as per decision taken by the Finance Standing Committee meeting of Hrishyamukh Panchayat Samiti decision dated 20.09.2014 just six months later of judgment and order dated 18.03.2014 passed in Case No. WP(C) 388/2013.' 3. Apart from the above, the learned Government Advocate drew our attention to a further notification issued by the Government of Tripura dated 21.11.2017 in which it indicates that substantial money has already been allocated for widening of various State Highways including the highway in question along which the acquired land also figures. 4. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, we are of the considered view that the land having already been acquired for the purposes of constructing a road Lay-Bye has not in any manner changed. It appears that the local village panchayat have constructed 8(eight) numbers of shop rooms adjoining the land acquired for the purpose of the Lay-Bye. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that they have no objection to the construction on the said shop but they apprehend that further shops will be constructed therein which would defeat the purpose of the original acquisition. 5. We have recorded the aforesaid submission only for the reason that as mentioned in the counter affidavit of the State, 8(eight) numbers of stalls have been constructed on the said land by the Panchayat Samiti to provide amenities to the passengers or vehicles and operators passing through the road and further that this construction by the Panchayat Samiti has not got the approval of the Revenue Administration prior to its construction. Further, since the State has already allocated budget for expansion of the said road, it is submitted that the Lay-Bye land shall also be used for such purpose. Consequently, it may become necessary for removing the said stalls on the land for the purpose of widening of the State Highways. 6. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, we find no merit in the writ petition and direct dismissal of the same. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner sought for an access from the Highway to his own agricultural land which is situated behind the acquired area. Insofar as this issue is concerned, it is beyond the scope of the writ petition and liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to seek appropriate civil remedy in the matter, in accordance with law. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.