MAN MOHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners for directing the respondent No. 2 to make a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agarala (hereinafter called "the L.A. Judge") for resolving the dispute between them and the respondent No. 3 with respect to payment of compensation money of Plot Nos. 8320, 8320/13535, 8347 and 8324 of Mouja Badharghat under Khatian No. 6072.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.N. Majumdar, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 3 and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the State respondents.

(3.) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I may briefly refer to the facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of both the parties :- The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of Plot Nos. 8347 and 8320, which were purchased by him from one Hem Chandra Sarkar by a registered Sale Deed dated 2.6.1955 while the petitioner No. 2 was the owner of Plot Nos. 8324 and 8320/13535, which she purchased from one Parimal Shom and Suresh Das respectively by two registered Sale Deeds dated 8.8.1962. The petitioners further state that the aforesaid four plots under Khatian No. 6072 were acquired by the Collector, Land Acquisition, West Tripura in the year 1997 for construction of Station Yard in favour of N.F. Railway vide Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 10/Sub-section/97 and that by the Award passed after 31.12.1997, the Collector awarded compensation for the said plots in favour of the respondent No. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that even though they were recorded to be in possession of the aforesaid plots in the record of rights, no notice under Section 9 of the Act were served upon them by the Collector. It is claimed by the petitioners that on 1.6.1998, they came to learn that the compensation amount was being paid to the respondent No. 3 by the Collector whereupon they submitted an application before the latter u/s 30 of the Act for referring the dispute to a Land Acquisition Judge for adjudication and also requested him not to make payment to the said respondent pending determination of their dispute by the Land Acquisition Judge. It is further stated by the petitioners that one Rasaraj Ghosh also made similar application before the Collector.