The Under Secretary, Government Of Tripura, Rural Development Department, West Tripura District vs 1. Sri Pranab Kumar Datta, Son Of Sri Manindra Kumar Datta, Resident Of Hrishyamukh, P.O. Hrishyamukh, P.S. Belonia, District-South Tripura; 2. Land Acquisition Collector, South Tripura, Belonia

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in case No. LA(Ref) 17 of 2016, whereby the amount of compensation has been further enhanced by the learned L.A.

Judge. In filing the appeal, the appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:

Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior GA appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

It is the contention made by the learned senior GA for the appellant, that the Court below has not considered or framed any issue on the point as to whether the claimant-respondent is entitled to seek the compensation. No title deed nor any document in support of his 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 appeal 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 claimant is owner of the subject land and did he prove his ownership by placing oral and documentary evidence, and pass similar order by disposing of the appeal.

The counsel for the respondent No.1 in all fairness submits that he has placed before the court the khatians and would place the documents in respect of his claim before the learned trial Court, and sought for permission of this Court to file all such relevant documents. He has also submitted that share of compensation has already been released in favour of the respondent No.1.

I have perused the entire record including the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

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.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao and Ors. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2026 INSC 450, while dealing with the issue-in-question has opined that revenue records, mutation entries, or tax receipts do not establish title or ownership of property. Such documents serve only fiscal purposes and cannot be used to prove ownership against government claims. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further opined that revenue entries may suggest possession but do not create, confer, or extinguish title. Para 16, of the said judgment, reads as follows:

In view of the above proposition of law, the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in case No. LA(Ref) 17 of 2016, is set aside, and the matter is remanded back.

Consequently, the appeal stands disposed. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

KAR ^{16:18:53 +05'30'}