KAMAKHYA RANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. B. Dhar, learned counsel along with Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) CERTAIN lands of the eight petitioners herein were acquired for a public purpose by the second respondent herein, the Land Acquisition Collector, North Tripura district, Kailashahar by notification issued in the month of May, 1980. In the same land acquisition proceeding, lands of other persons also including that of one Ajit Kumar Barman appearing in Sl. No. 106 of the notification were also acquired. At the end of the said proceeding, an award was made at flat rate and the petitioners received the amount, but due to ignorance, they did not present any prayer for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') to the learned L. A. Judge for enhancement of the amount of compensation though they were not satisfied with the amount awarded. But one of the owners of the acquired land, namely, Ajit Kumar Barman preferred a prayer for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act which was duly done and the learned L. A. Judge decided the said reference on a compromise in the Lok Adalat determining Rs. 9,000/- per kani. After the said order dated 3. 3. 96 by the learned L. A. Judge, North Tripura, in Civil Misc (LA) 1 of 95, the petitioners herein presented a prayer before the L. A. Collector for re-determining the amount of compensation under Section 28 A of the Act. The said prayer of the petitioners did not find favour. As the L. A. Collector did not act in accordance with the provision of Section 28a of the Act for re-determination of the rate of compensation, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the L. A. Collector to re-determine the amount of compensation in terms of the said provision.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been admitted in para 13 that after the judgment of the learned L. A. Judge enhancing the amount to Rs. 9,000/- per kani for the acquired land, the L. A. Collector had received petitions from the petitioners herein for re-determination of the rate of compensation under Section 28a of the Act on 4. 7. 96. But as the prayers were not within time, the L. A. Collector did not act upon them. It is the case of the respondents herein that as per provision under Section 28a of the Act, every such petition for re-determination has to be filed within a period of three months from the date of passing the order of the learned L. A. Judge which is the foundation of the claim. Thus, the claim of re-determination being barred by limitation, the prayers deserved no consideration. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition as not maintainable.