Pradip Debnath And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, the respondents in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.537 of 2017, the said writ petition was filed by the respondent namely Smt. Shilpi Debnath, hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner, now represented by Mr. D.K. Das Chowdhury, learned counsel.

By means of the writ petition, the writ petitioner had claimed her share over the compensation as awarded for acquisition of a piece of land measuring 0.20 acre from the total homestead measuring 0.40 acre. The writ petitioner is the widow of Ranjit Debnath who is the full-blood brother of the review petitioner No.1 and son of late Sital Chandra Debnath. In the name of Sital Chandra Debnath, since deceased, the referred land was recorded as Plot No.409/6197-P under Khatian No.864 of Mouja Lowgong. Since the writ petitioner was entitled to the share of the landed property left by late Sital Chandra Debnath being the wife of the said pre-deceased son, she had claimed share over that land. That demand was not acceded to.

There was a dispute over the land between the writ petitioner and the respondents (the review petitioners herein) a Lok Adalat proceeding was taken up being P.D.201/2008 between the parties and it was settled in the Lok Adalat that the writ petitioner will get 0.10 acre of land out of .40 acre of the homestead land as referred above. By the settlement, the Lok Adalat had decided in respect of the proceeds of the LIC policy bearing No.90672706 also. The said policy was in the name of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, it was decided by way of a separate settlement that the entire proceed would go to the writ petitioner. This is, however, not the question raised in the writ petition or the present review petition. According to the review petitioner, the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 warrants to be reviewed as this court has observed that the Lok Adalat settlement does not disentitle the petitioner to get her share over the homestead land. Having observed thus, this court has also declared that the respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the review petitioners are liable to pay one eighth share of the total award i.e. Rs.48,75,678/- which was assessed as the compensation for the acquired land. It was determined by this court that according to the share as decided in the Lok Adalat proceeding, the writ petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,09,459.75 in terms of her share as no partition has taken place over the said land. Hence, the respondents, the review petitioners herein, were directed to pay the said share to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the judgment else the competent authority, the respondent No.2, shall draw an appropriate proceeding for recovering the said money from the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 and to make the said amount paid to the petitioner. It was further observed that the respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the review petitioners herein, shall not act in a manner which would persuade the competent authority to draw such proceeding against them. It has been made clear that if it is found that the competent authority has deducted the income tax from the said award, that tax shall also be duly adjusted against the share of the petitioner.

According to Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned counsel who has appeared for the review petitioners, the writ petitioner had no share in the part of homestead land which has been acquired, and accordingly she would get no share from the award in respect of the acquisition. In this matter, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has made extensive reference to the Lok Adalat records which had been called and produced before this court. Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned counsel has further stated that in the acquired land the writ petitioner had no share. But since there is no proof of partition of the inherited joint land, only the share was settled, this contention cannot be accepted in law.

On scrutiny of the records, it appears that no demarcation of the land according to the share was made in respect of the homestead land. On the contrary, it had been categorically settled by the parties that from the homestead land out of one kani corresponding to .40 acre, the writ petitioner will get 5 ganda corresponding to .10 acre and thereafter no further step was taken by the Lok Adalat to demarcate the matter though this court finds that there is a surveyor's report, placed on the record, but the placing of the surveyor's report in the records has not been reflected in the order of the Lok Adalat. The surveyor's report was not taken into consideration by the Lok Adalat and as such Lok Adalat by way of settlement has not decided anything beyond the said settlement, and as such, the Survey Commissioner's report has no value in the eye of law. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

The respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the review petitioners, are directed to make payment of the money to the extent of Rs.6,09,459.75 within a period of two months from today, else the respondent No.2 shall draw a proceeding to recover the said money to the extent of Rs.6,09,459.75 from the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 within a fortnight on expiry of two months as decided by this court for payment. On recovery, the said money should be paid to the writ petitioner and if any income tax was recovered from the said awarded money, the same shall be proportionately adjusted against the share of the writ petitioner. It is expected that considering the relation of the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 with the writ petitioner, those respondents [the review petitioners] shall pay within the time as stipulated by this court, else the writ petitioner will be at liberty to institute appropriate action for realising the interest from the date when the respondents No.4 and 5 and 6 had received that money.

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated in view of the direction made above.

The records as called from the Lok Adalat be returned forthwith.