AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 18.09.2024 passed in Misc(L.A.) 143 of 2014 by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala.
The brief fact of this case is that as per the requisition of the appellant, the land of the respondent-claimant, was acquired by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, vide notification dated 15.10.2009 for construction of 'New Railway line from Agartala to Sabroom'. Accordingly, the L.A. Collector, South Tripura, Sabroom, has awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,55,000/- per kani for Bagan (Tilla) class of land.
Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent, filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894, for referring the matter to the L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and, accordingly, the same was referred to the court of learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Thereafter, the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, after hearing both the parties, by its judgment dated 18.09.2024 has allowed the claim petition enhancing the award of compensation at the rate of 10,00,000/- per kani.
Hence, aggrieved thereby by appellant herein has filed this present appeal seeking 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 18.09.2024 passed in Misc (LA.) 143 of 2014 by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala shall not be set-aside;
(iii)Call for the records of case no. Misc (L.A.)
143 of 2014 from the court of the learned L. A. Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala.
AND
(iv)After hearing both the sides may kindly set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2024 passed in Misc (L.A.) 143 of 2014 by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala;
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.”
Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court on the strength of a ‘Will’ exhibited has considered the claim of the claimant-respondent as owner and awarded compensation. Learned Deputy SGI, argued that the said ‘Will’ has not been properly proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the same is not admissible to prove the owner-ship of the claimant.
After perusal of the record this Court finds that on the strength of the registered ‘Will’, the Trial Court has considered the claim of the claimant-respondent as owner and awarded compensation. A mere ‘Will’ is not sufficient to establish ownership unless the chain of title showing how the testator acquired the property is also proved. Since the link document like any sale-deed/title deed or any legally enforceable document is not placed on record, this Court feels that the mere ‘Will’ is not sufficient to declare the claimant as the owner and make him entitled to claim the compensation from the appellant.
In view of the same, the impugned Trial Court Order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Misc.(L.A.) 143 of 2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall re-examine the matter by giving opportunity to both sides to place all documentary and oral evidences on record, marking the exhibit to proceed with the matter and decide the same in accordance with law as per procedure.
With the above observation and direction, this present appeal stands disposed of. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.