Tripura High Court
Shri Abdul Gani vs The Union Of India on 8 April, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.35/2025
1. Shri Abdul Gani
S/o. Late Chamed Ali
2. Shri Muslem Miah
S/o. Late Sujat Ali
3. Shri Safik Miah
S/o. Late Sujat Ali
4. Smt. Afhiya Khatun
W/o. Late Chan Miah
5. Smt. Jamila Khatun
W/o. Nawab Ali
All are resident of Birampur,
Jatrapur, PO. & P.S. Jatrapur,
Sub-Division Sonamura,
Sepahijala Tripura.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highway,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The Commander (HQ),
755 BRTF (GREF)
Lichu Bagan, Agartala.
C/o. APO, West Tripura.
3. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department,
Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala-799006.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector,
Sepahijala District, Bishramganj, Tripura.
---Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Advocate
Mr. Robel Hossain, Advocate
Ms. Meena Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI
Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 08/04/2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
Page 2 of 6
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants. Also heard learned Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court seeking compensation in lieu of dispossession of their landed property without acquisition for construction of Indo-Bangladesh Border Road in late 1990s. Out of the five writ petitioners, four of them rely upon the Record of Rights, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the Memo of Appeal to claim that despite their names appearing in the record of rights, no compensation was paid to them for the construction of Indo-Bangladesh Border nor their lands were lawfully acquired. They claim to be the owners of the land measuring 0.65 acres, Mauja Biarampur, Tahsil-Dhanpur, Khatian No.273/2, 273/3, 273/4 and 273/5, Revenue Circle-Dhanpur under Sepahijala District. According to them, the land originally belongs to one Kadarer Necha, after whose death, they along with other legal heirs have got this land by inheritance. They have been cultivating the lands with seasonal crops, and one house with tin shed and pucca floor has been constructed, in which they have been residing with their family members. According to them, Indo-Bangladesh Border Road was constructed over their land upon Plot Nos.1207, 1208, 1655 and 1578, 1579, 1654, measuring 0.22, 0.15, 0.40, 0.10, 0.23, 0.84 satak, classified as Bustu/Charra, but unfortunately at the time of construction no acquisition notice was served. The appellants along with other Page 3 of 6 land owners were affected. Despite objection raised they have not been paid any paisa in lieu of such construction.
3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2024. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit as the petitioners were not able to place any document to show their claim as lawful owners of the land in question. They have not placed any title deed in their favour. Therefore, in the absence of any prima facie document they have failed to make out a case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in connection with acquisition of the adjacent lands for construction of the Indo-Bangladesh Border Road the affected persons have earlier approached the Writ Court, such as in the case of Shri Nepal Paul and 2 Ors. vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors. in WP(C) No.952 of 2016. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to certain judgments rendered in the cases of WP(C) 952 of 2016, WP(C) No.585 of 2020, WP(C) No.1163 of 2019 and other such writ petitions which were disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to grant compensation. Some of those writ petitions are annexed with the Memo of Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the Act 1894 has been repealed and replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the respondents should be directed to reinitiate the proceedings by issuing fresh notification under the new Act.
5. The learned Writ Court did not appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in its right perspective and refused to interfere in the matter.
6. Before the learned Writ Court, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 categorically disputing the averments made in the writ Page 4 of 6 petition. They stated that the writ petition was not maintainable since the petitioner has no locus standi. No cause of action arose in their favour. There has been no denial of legal or fundamental rights, nor any act of discrimination against them. Several disputed matter of facts, which need evidence, have been raised, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The appellants have not submitted any document showing even their prima facie right, title and interest over the said land to invite judicial interference. The construction of IBB Road at Mauja Birampur was done in 1995 whereas the appellants have approached this Court after expiry of more than 29 years of unexplained delay. They have also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in WP(C) No.622 of 2023 dated 04.10.2023 where such claim was dismissed. They have also objected to the writ petition on the same grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India and State, both submit that none of the ingredients for seeking a relief from the Writ Court has been made out on the part of the writ petitioners. Firstly, they have not able to show whether their land was actually acquired for the purpose of construction of Indo-Bangla Border Road in late 1990s. No notification of acquisition of any other land for construction of the Indo-Bangla Border Road during that period has been annexed to show that these petitioners were left out in the process of acquisition. The petitioners have also not been able to show any document of title over the land. In the absence of such prima facie materials, the learned Writ Court has rightly refused to grant any relief. It is submitted that the decisions rendered by the learned Writ Court in other cases cited by the petitioners also did not direct straightaway grant of compensation as Page 5 of 6 several disputed questions of facts were involved. In those decisions, the learned Writ Court had at the first instance directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to carry out such exercise of ascertaining whether any part of the land of any of the petitioners has been occupied for construction of the said road in consultation with the State authorities. And only if it is found that land has been acquired without any compensation, the formula provided in the case of Nepal Paul could be applied in the case of such petitioners. It is submitted that in the absence of prima facie material on the part of present petitioners this court should not direct the authorities to indulge in roving and fishing inquiry to first determine whether any piece of their land was really used or acquired for construction of Indo-Bangla Border Road moreover when these petitioners have not shown any document of title to establish their claim. Therefore, the order of the learned Writ Court does not require any interference.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials placed on record. No doubt, it is well settled that in matters of acquisition, if the land loser has been dispossessed by the State authorities for execution of any public project without any formal acquisition process, delay in approaching the Court would not defeat the valuable right to property of such land loser. However, in order to establish a claim, it is elementary that such persons like the writ petitioners prima facie are able to show that their lands have been used for construction of the Indo- Bangla Border Road and they are the rightful owners on the basis of valid documents of title. In the present case, they have failed to bring on record any notification showing the acquisition of the land for construction of the Indo- Bangla Border Road in Berampur where their pieces of land have been left out Page 6 of 6 illegally and unfairly. In the absence of such prima facie materials, the Writ Court had no other option but to refuse to interfere in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The instant writ appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rohit
Digitally signed
SATABD byDUTTA
SATABDI
I DUTTA Date: 2025.04.11
12:11:21 +05'30'