Tripura High Court
Sri Pradip Debnath And Others vs Smt. Shilpi Debnath And Others on 17 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 62
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.228/2019
Sri Pradip Debnath and others
........... Petitioner(s)
- Vs. -
Smt. Shilpi Debnath and others
........... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2 to 4: Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
ORDER
17/02/2020.
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
Notice made returnable forthwith.
Learned counsel Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1, original petitioner and learned Government Advocate waives notice for respondents No.2 to 4.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the original respondents No.2 to 6 (hereinafter to be referred to as private respondents) to challenge the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2017 in W.P. (C) No.537 of 2017 as well as an order dated 13.08.2018 passed in Rev. Pet. No.59 of 2018.
The said writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein in which she had claimed compensation amount of Rs.6,09,459.75/- for acquisition of land carried out by the National Highway authority. Her case was that the acquired land originally belonged to deceased Sital Chandra Debnath, who had left behind Page 2 of 5 his widow Prativa and three sons, Pradip, Sanjib and Ranjit. Ranjit later on died. She is widow of deceased Ranjit. According to her, she had her share in the said family property portion of which was acquired by the Government despite which she was not paid her share of the compensation. In such background in the writ petition, she had challenged an order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. By the said order, the said authority came to the conclusion that since the petitioner has already remarried, she would no longer have any right over the family property.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that remarriage did not disentitle the petitioner from receiving her share which she derived from her deceased husband. The learned Judge held that she had 1/8th share which would work out to be Rs.6,09,459.75/- out of the total compensation of Rs.48,75,678/-. The learned Single Judge directed the private respondents to pay the said sum within two months from the date of the order failing which, the competent authority, respondent No.2, would draw appropriate proceedings for recovering the said money from the said private respondents.
A Review Petition was filed by the private respondents. Such Review Petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 13.08.2019. No material change was made in the original order. Minor modifications were made. Operative portion of the said Review order reads as under:
"06. The respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the review petitioners, are directed to make payment of the money to the extent of Rs.6,09,459.75 within a period Page 3 of 5 of two months from today, else the respondent No.2 shall draw a proceeding to recover the said money to the extent of Rs.6,09,459.75 from the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 within a fortnight on expiry of two months as decided by this court for payment. On recovery, the said money should be paid to the writ petitioner and if any income tax was recovered from the said awarded money, the same shall be proportionately adjusted against the share of the writ petitioner. It is expected that considering the relation of the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 with the writ petitioner, those respondents [the review petitioners] shall pay within the time as stipulated by this court, else the writ petitioner will be at liberty to institute appropriate action for realising the interest from the date when the respondents No.4 and 5 and 6 had received that money."
Considering the issues involved, we have heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition at this stage. Having heard the learned advocates, we are of the opinion that the issues raised by the original petitioner for apportionment of her share out of the compensation determined by the respondent No.2, could not have been taken up in a writ petition. Directions for repayment by the private respondents failing which direction to the respondent No.2 to institute recovery proceedings, consequently ought not to have been issued. This is so because the National Highways Act, 1956 under which the acquisition has been undertaken and compensation assessed and paid, contains specific provisions to deal with the situation where there is dispute inter se between the claimants. Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 pertains to determination of amount payable Page 4 of 5 as compensation. After such determination is completed the compensation has to be deposited and paid as provided under Section 3H. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3H provides that the amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by the rules with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 3H, as soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority would on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. As per sub-Section (3) of Section 3H where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Sub-Section (4) of Section 3H, which is of importance, reads as under:
"(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated."
As per this sub-Section (4) of Section 3H thus, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, out of any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the Page 5 of 5 limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. This provision is pari materia to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Under the circumstances, when the original petitioner had approached the competent authority staking her claim to part of the compensation assessed since the private respondents had resisted any such claim, it was the duty of the competent authority to refer the dispute to the competent civil court. He could not have taken a decision since such a dispute was not within his purview. At the same time, the High Court also should not have undertaken the task of assessing internal shares of the petitioners and the private respondents. The same had to be done by a competent civil court on a reference to be made by the authority.
The impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Review order are set aside. However, the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the competent authority is also set aside. He shall, instead make a reference of the dispute to the competent civil court as provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. This shall be done within a period of one month from today.
The reference court shall decide the disputes involved unmindful of any of the observations made in any of the orders passed by the High Court.
Appeal is disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ sima