SHIKHA RANI DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy involved in both the writ petitions as originated from the L.A. Case No. 01/SDR/2010 whereby the land of the writ petitioner, namely, Sikha Rani Das in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 has admittedly been acquired for industrial growth centre in terms of the declaration No. F. 9(11)-REV/ACQ/VI/09 dated 08.06.2010 is entertained. In W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 the writ petitioner sought for a direction for release of the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector by the order dated 17.11.2011 and for quashing the letter dated 04.05.2012 as issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura whereby it has been communicated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar/Jirania, West Tripura that payment order so passed by the letter dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure-P.11) is required to be withheld until further clearance from the Land Acquisition Officer. It has been further observed in the said letter that 'in this occasion I would like to inform you that the matter required further re-enquiry through Khayerpur T.K. relating to possession of the occupiers over the land in question as per submission of the 2nd party.'

(2.) In W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 the writ petitioners, to claim their title having matured by long possession over the acquired land, adverse to the title of the true owner, filed this writ petition for directing the Land Acquisition Collector to make the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication of the claim and the counter-claim over the acquired land. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 contending that they have been in continuous possession since 1955 denying the title of the true owner openly since 1967 in exclusion of all other rights appurtenant to the said land claimed the compensation for title. They also contended that the record of rights has not been properly published and they have filed a Revenue Case No. 351 of 2010 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. In that petition they prayed for correction of the record of right and to record their name as the Jotedar by way of adverse possession. They are apprehensive that since a part of the said land has been acquired by the appropriate Government, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012, the respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 on the basis of the title would take away the entire compensation. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector is also in dilemma as he directed for an inspection of the land by the settlement officials and for that reason, the payment of the compensation has been withheld by the said order dated 04.05.2012.

(3.) Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 and for the respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2012 contended with sufficient vehemence that only the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 246 of 2012 is entitled to the entire compensation. The said petitioner has also deposited all relevant documents to demonstrate her title on the acquired land. He also contended that some strangers who are not 'interested persons' within the ambit of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have raised certain objections to practice mischief and on their objections the Land Acquisition Collector by withholding the compensation money has been acting in defiance to law. He also contended that there cannot be any ambiguity as regards the purpose of Section 30 which provides that: