Page 1 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA L.A. APP 8 OF 2026 The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura ----Appellant-Opposite Party Versus 1. Sri Ratan Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 2. Sri Sankar Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 3. Sri Dilip Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 4. Sri Rupak Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 5. Sri Goutam Natta, son of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 6. Smt. Mira Rani Natta, wife of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 7. Smt. Bina Natta, daughter of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; 8. Smt. Malina Natta, daughter of lt. Manik Natta, resident of Brajapur, P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala; All are represented by Sri Ratan Natta by way of Power of Attorney. …. Respondent-Claimants 9. Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala (now Sepahijala District, Bishramganj) ---- Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr, GA Mr. R. Paul, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery : 23.03.2026 of Judgment & Order Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD Judgment & Order (Oral) This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-opposite party being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 289 of Page 2 2016, whereby the amount of compensation has been further enhanced by the learned L.A. Judge. In filing the appeal, the appellant-opposite party has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) Admit the instant appeal; (ii) Issue notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned judgment/award dated 27.09.2022 passed in Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2016 by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh shall not be set-aside; (iii) Call for the records of case no. Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2016 from the court of the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh. AND (iv) After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2022 passed in Misc. (L.A.) 289 of 2014 by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh AND (v) Pass any other order/orders and/or direction/ directions as may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the appellant-opposite party. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior GA appearing for respondent no.9 and Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents. 3. It is the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party, Mr. Majumder, Dy. SGI, that the Court below has not considered or framed any issue on the point as to whether the claimant-respondents are entitled to seek the compensation. No title deed nor any document in support of their claim has been placed on record, and no such exhibit has been marked nor any evidence was addressed except relying on the khatians and the same cannot be treated as title deed. He further placed reliance on several judgments passed by this Court wherein this Court in all matters disposed of the appeals by setting aside the order passed by the L.A. Judge remanding the same to the concerned Court directing the L.A. Judge to reconsider the matter by framing an issue on the point whether the claimants are owners Page 3 of the subject lands and did they prove their ownership by placing oral and documentary evidence, and pass similar order by disposing of the appeal. 4. The counsel for the respondent in all fairness submits that he has placed before the court the khatians and would place the documents in respect of their claim before the learned trial Court, and sought for permission of this Court to file all such relevant documents. 5. I have perused the entire record including the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides, this Court considering the earlier judgments passed in the matters of similar in nature dispose the present appeal by setting aside the Order passed by the trial Court and remand the matter back directing the L.A. Judge to frame an issue on the point of title deeds to decide the ownership and thereafter give an opportunity to both sides and decide the matter by adducing evidences as per procedure. It is pertinent to note that this Court is of the opinion that in the event if the land-owner is found to be looser of land in the process of acquisition, he has to be appropriately compensated, but in the event, if the person claiming compensation fails to prove his ownership, he shall not be paid a single rupee from the government exchequer, as no unauthorized person is entitled for any bonanza. 7. In view of the above, the judgment and award dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Sepahijala District, Page 4 Bishalgarh, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 289 of 2016, is set aside, and the matter is remanded back. 8. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. JUDGE SAIKAT KAR Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR Date: 2026.03.27 18:06:25 -04'00'