HIMANGSHU RANJAN ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to make payment of compensation, solatium and interest under the land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the land measuring 0.22 acre as per direction of this court in First appeal No. 19 of 1990.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that pursuant to notification dated 15.1.1982 under sections 4, 5(A) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land measuring 0.65 acre belonging to the petitioner in Khattan No. 355, Jote No. 262, Plot Nos. 705 and 1152 in Mouza-Harerkhala, was acquired by the State Government of Tripura. The possession of the entire land measuring 0.65 acre was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kamalpur Sub-Division, North Tripura on 12.12.1987. But compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, North Tripura, Kailasahar, for only 0.43 acre of land. In the reference to the Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, the petitioner raised the plea, inter alia, that compensation has been awarded for 0.43 acre of and although the land of the petitioner to the extent of 0.65 acre was acquired. Against the judgment of learned Land Acquisition Judge, North Tripura, determining the rate of compensation at Rs.40,000 per kani, the Land Acquisition Collector filed First Appeal No.19/ 1990 before this court and the petitioner also filed cross objection (Appeal) No. 199/1990 in this court. This court disposed of the First Appeal and the said Cross Objection (appeal) by judgment and order dated 5.8.1997. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgment in First Appeal and the Cross Objection, this court dealt with the plea of the petitioner that although land to the extent of 0.65 acre had been acquired and taken over possession, compensation had been paid only to the extent of 0.43 acre. The said paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

(3.) In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that such enquiry was made and it was revealed that the requiring department occupied 0.43 acre of land for the project and did not require any more land for the said project, and the Executive Engineer, MIFC informed the Land Acquisition Collector that 0.43 acre of land had been acquired by the requiring department, and the said information was also communicated to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Collector. With regard to the Certificate of possession of 0.65 acre of land belonging to the petitioner issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it has been stated in the said counter affidavit in paragraph 7 that the said certificate has been issued by the Sab Divisional Officer on mistaken facts as would be revealed from the CS Plot Nos. mentioned in the certificate, and the wrong recording in the certificate was rectified by issuance of a new one regarding handing over and taking over possession, and the same has also been informed to the petitioner. In the said paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it has further been stated that the Revenue Department has issued a withdrawal notification under section 48(1) of the L.A. Act. 1894, and the petitioner has been informed about the same and that the Government is not utilizing the aforesaid excess land of the petitioner for any purpose.