MAHANTAM KUMAR PANDIT Vs. PANNALAL GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is against the judgment and award dated 3.5.95 passed by the learned L.A. Judge (Chief Judge) North Tripura Kailasahar in Misc. L.A. Case No. 13 of 1989 awarding Compensation in favour of the respondents herein in a reference made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in connection with acquisition of a priece of land under C.S. Plot No. 1693/ 3481 (Part) and 1693/3482(Part) having an area of 0.10 acres under Khatian No. 379 for the purpose of construction of public road from Pabiacherra Bazar to Charmanagar Darchaibari. The present appellant raised a claim for compensation so also the respondents herein and after inquiry the Collector made the award in favour of the appellant herein and at the instance of the respondents, the Collector made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned L.A. Judge, after hearing the parties, made the award in favour of the respondents. Hence the appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellant therein is that the land acquired by the Government is a portion of the land which was allotted to him under allotment order dated 27.2.79 by the Collector (S.D.O. Kailasahar) and his name was also recorded in the revenue records as the owner of the land under Khatian No. 2008 of the Mouja Pabiacherra. It was also the claim of the appellant that even before the allotment of the land he was in possession of the land being a portion of the land under C.S. Plat No. 1693/3481 (Part) and 1693/3482(Part) of Khatian 2008 of Mouja Pabiacherra. On the other hand, the case of the respondents herein is that their father Akhil Ch. Ghosh purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 4th Poush 1366-T.E. and on his death on 29.12.64 the respondents, who are the surviving children, inherited the same It was also the case of the respondents that a title suit being T.S. No. 74 of 1950 was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the suit was decreed and in execution of the decree under Execution Case No. 27 of 1953 delivery of possession of the decretal land was handed over to the father of the respondents on 4.12.1957 and according to the respondents, the acquired land is a portion of the land purchased by their father over which the title was declared by the Civil Court and also in execution of the decree the possession of land was delivered in favour of the predecessor (father) of the respondents.

(3.) In the course of hearing, the learned District Judge recorded the evidence, both oral and documentary, and even issued a survey Commission who submitted a report of the Commission and after appreciating the evidence the learned L.A. Judge awarded compensation in favour of the respondents.