SHILPI DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the widow and two major sons of the deceased Nimai Chandra Das who was an applicant in Misc. (L.A.) 23 of 2012 made on reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation awarded in course of acquisition of certain lands of the petitioners for purposes of "Construction of By-pass Road from Khayerpur to Amtali" vide notification dtd. 16/3/2004. The land looser was awarded a sum of Rs.60,956.00 vide award dtd. 9/12/2005. Before the Land Acquisition Judge the claimant, in spite of several opportunities, did not take any steps to prosecute the matter for reasons best known to him. The learned L.A. Court, therefore, presumed that the claimant had lost interest to proceed with the case or was satisfied with the award given by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura. Accordingly, the Court recorded satisfaction that the award given by the L.A. Collector was adequate and sufficient. The referring claimant was not entitled to get any enhanced award from that Court. The award of L.A. Collector was confirmed vide impugned order dtd. 7/9/2017. The petitioners have challenged it after 8(eight) years in the present revision petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the actual owner Smt. Chinu Bala Das expired on 12/2/2012 leaving behind seven survivors including Nimai Chandra Das. During that period, the Misc. (L.A.) 23 of 2012 was pending before the learned L.A. Court, West Tripura, Agartala. The said Nimai Chandra Das expired on 28/1/2018 without informing anything to the present petitioners who are his legal heirs. At the time of death, petitioners No.2 and 3, who are the sons of late Nimai Chandra Das, were studying in Class 12 and Class 9 respectively. They had to leave studies due to financial crisis. Thereafter, COVID-19 intervened in March, 2020 and petitioner No.3 also suffered accident due to fall. It was only thereafter that they came to know that the adjacent land owners had received an enhanced amount of compensation from the LA Court. Thereafter, they chose to challenge the order dtd. 7/9/2017 passed by the learned L.A. Court in Misc. (L.A.) 23 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 in support of his submission that in matters of acquisition of property, delay and laches cannot be raised as it is a case of continuing cause of action since there is no period of limitation for the Court to exercise constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

(3.) However on perusal of the decision in the case of Vidya Devi (supra), it is apparent that the appellant was an illiterate widow from rural area whereas her private property was forcibly expropriated without following any lawful procedure of compensation. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, that the State should pay compensation to the appellant based on compensation paid in acquisition of adjoining land along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition.