Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 158 (TRI)

Hiralal Sarkar v. L. a. Collector And Anr

2022-03-25

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Ms. N. Chakma Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. De, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the respondent No.1 acquired some land from the Plot No.7781/P under Khatian No.24142 of mouja Badharghat they had encroached more land measuring 0.07 acre without paying any compensation. It is not in dispute that the area of acquired land is 0.175 acre in the Plot No.7781/P under Khatian No.24172 of mouja Badharghat. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has received the compensation against the said land without raising any objection. In this backdrop, the petitioner by filing this writ petition has urged this court for directing the respondents to acquire the land measuring 0.07 acre by following the process of law and compensate him. 3. The respondents have filed separate replies denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No.1, the LA Collector has stated in the reply under paragraph-7 as follows: 'The basic allegation of the applicant is that the respondent No.1 & 2 occupy his additional land measuring 0.07 acres without giving compensation. The respondent No.1, does not occupy additional land measuring 0.07 acres from the applicant beyond the acquired area measuring 0.175 acres against plot no.7781/p under khatian No.24172 detailed on the issue are already narrated above.' 4. The respondent No.2 has filed their reply in the same line. For purpose of reference the part of para-4 is reproduced hereunder: 'At the time of receiving the awarded amount no objection was filed in respect of the remaining portion of the land as stated in the petition by the petitioner. The N.F. Railway has acquired the land measuring 0.175 which has been acquired by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala so, there is no question arises to occupy the more land measuring 0.070 acres. The petitioner has sent the notice to the respondents about the dispute of the land which was claimed to be acquired by N.F. Railway and the said notice was duly received by the N.F. Railway. The petitioner has sent the notice to the respondents about the dispute of the land which was claimed to be acquired by N.F. Railway and the said notice was duly received by the N.F. Railway. After receiving the notice, the official of N.F. Railway discussed with the L.A. Collector about the dispute of the land measuring 0.070 acres which was claimed to be acquired by the N.F. Railway for the purpose of construction of the railway line. Thereafter, the N.F. Railway and L.A. Collector made joint enquiry about the dispute but no dispute in respect of the land has been found.' 5. It is therefore apparent that the respondents No.1 & 2 have categorically stated that they have not encroached any land of the petitioner beyond what was acquired. But the petitioner has been insisting before this court that they are under encroachment of the respondent No.2. 6. In the emerged circumstance, the respondent No.1 is directed to make an inquiry in order to demarcate the land which was acquired and handed over to the respondent No.2. The remaining part of the land measuring .070 acre shall be handed over to the petitioner through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar by removing encroachment, if any. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. 7. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order be supplied to Ms. N. Chakma Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 for onward transmission.