GIRINDRA CHANDRA BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 2, the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala to make reference pursuant to the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) A land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector by issuing a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 19. 11. 1997 in L. A. case No. 10/ss/97 acquiring land measuring 1. 83 acres in Khatian No. 2388, Plot No. 8488 of Badharghat Mouza in the State of Tripura. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued and an award was passed by the L. A. Collector on 9. 5. 1998. The notice under Section 12 (2) of the L. A. Act was thereafter served on the petitioner and others on 21. 5. 1998. Since there was a dispute regarding appointment of the amount of compensation so awarded by the Collector, the said dispute was referred to the learned L. A. Judge under Section 30 of the L. A. Act which was registered as Misc. (L. A.) No. 4 of 98 before the learned L. A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and the petitioner received the notice in the said proceeding, under Section 30 of the L. A. Act on 19. 1. 1999. The learned L. A. Judge vide order dated 1. 4. 1999 decided the said proceeding under Section 30 of the L. A. Act by apportioning the amount of compensation to the effect that the present writ petitioner Girindra Chandra Banik shall get an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/ -. The petitioner, thereafter on 9. 4. 1999 filed an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L. A. Collector claiming that the market value has not been determined by the Collector properly and hence the dispute regarding determination of market value of the land should be referred to the learned L. A. Judge in terms of the provisions contained in under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. Since the prayer has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for directing the L. A. Collector to refer the matter to the learned L. A. Judge under Section 18 of the L. A. Act. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the Collector vide order dated 16. 4. 2005 rejected the application filed by the writ petitioner praying for reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act on the ground that the same is barred by time, in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the L. A. Act.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel to the petitioner and Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Sr. G. A. assisted by Mr. B. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondents.