HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA LA App.82 of 2025 The Deputy Chief Engineer (Con-2), N.F. Railway, Agartala, West Tripura ………..Appellant –Opposite Party(s) Versus 1. Sri Benu Ram Laskar, son of Prakash Chandra Laskar, Resident of Manubazar, P.O. & P.S. Manubazar, Sabroom, District- South Tripura-799143 …………Respondent-Claimant(s) 2. Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia ………..Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Dy.SGI For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. G.A. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Prasenjit Shil, Advocate HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD ORDER 09.04.2026 [1] Heard learned counsel for both the sides. [2] This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2023 passed in case No. CM L.A. 25 of 2022 seeking the following the reliefs:- “(i) Admit the instant appeal; (ii) Issue notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned judgment/award dated 28.11.2023 passed in CM L.A. 25 of 2022 dated 28.11.2023 passed in CM L.A. 25 of 2022 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom shall not be set-aside; (iii) Call for the records of case no. CM. L.A. 25 of 2022 from the court of the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom. AND (iv) After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2023 passed in CM L.A. 25 of 2022 by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom;…….. ……..…………….” [3] It is represented on behalf of both the sides that in similarly situated bunch of matters, this Court has observed that those matters be remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh adjudication since ownerships of the claimants were not established and issue was not framed separately on the point of ownership/title-deed of the claimant(s). [4] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar, this Court opines that since the case in hand pertains to payment of compensation and in identical appeals under Land Acquisition Act where issue of ownership was not decided framing any separate issue for proving the title and the ownership, were remanded back to the concerned LA Judge for re-examination on the point of ownership/title deed of the claimants, accordingly, this matter also needs to be remanded back to the trial Court for the same reason. [5] Hence, since the issue was not framed by the learned trial Court regarding title and ownership of the claimants, accordingly, the lower Court’s order dated 28.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for reconsideration by framing an issue on the point of title deed and to decide the ownership and, thereafter, to pass an award in accordance with law. Both the parties would be at liberty to place relevant documents, if any, in support of their respective submissions before the concerned Court for consideration by filing appropriate application(s). It is pertinent to mention here that the records already available with the trial court shall also remain there for consideration. [6] It is needless to observe that in the event, if the land is acquired pertaining to the landlord, he would be entitled for fair and even a generous compensation in a given circumstance, but unless it is decided that the recipient of the claim-amount is holding a valid alienable title, it cannot be said that he is entitled for claiming the compensation. An unauthorized person cannot be paid a single rupee from the public money. [7] With the above observation and direction, the matter is remanded back and accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand closed. DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J Sabyasachi G. SABYASACHI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH Date: 2026.04.13 15:45:49 +05'30'