ANITA CHOWDHURY; SUBRATA CHOUDHURY; JAYABARTA CHOUDHURY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR; AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and nil Award dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007.

(2.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Pal for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. None appeared for the other respondent.

(3.) The simple submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik is that for acquisition of land measuring 6 gandas 2 karas & 13 dhurs situated at Mouja Ramnagar within Agartala Municipal Corporation, the land owners, i.e., the referring-claimants, were paid compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- per kani, whereas they claimed compensation @ Rs.25,00,000/- per kani. The referring-claimants received the compensation under protest by filing an application under Section 18 of the LA Act to make a reference and, accordingly, the LA Collector made reference to the learned LA Judge for determination of actual market price of the land and that reference was registered as Case No. Misc. (LA) 43 of 2007 in the Court of learned LA Judge, Court No.2, Agartala and the learned LA Judge on 30.08.2013 in spite of a petition filed on behalf of the referringclaimants seeking time to adduce evidence, disposed the reference without affording opportunity to the referring-claimants to adduce evidence. The respondents also were not afforded any chance to adduce evidence. The reference was disposed of by a simple order that the compensation for acquisition given by the LA Collector was proper.