Benulal Hazari vs The State of Tripura and Others

S. Talapatra, J.—1. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction on the respondents to make payment of compensation for their occupation on the land measuring 0.91 acre, surveyed in RS plot No. 548, corresponding to CS plot Nos. 111 and 112, classified as tilla and recorded in Khatian No. 790 of Mouja Natun Bazar, under Nutan Bazar Tehasil, P.S. Nutan Bazar, Sub-Division Amarpur, District : Gomati, Tripura. As that land was under occupation since March, 1999 till the day of filing of the writ petition, a further direction has been sought on the respondents to deliver the vacant possession of the land forthwith. In the alternative, the petitioner has urged for payment of the compensation with interest for use of that land without any authority.

The facts are mostly admitted. The land under reference was owned by Sri Dulal Sutradhar, Sri Dipak Sutradhar, Smt. Mina Rani Sutradhar, Smt. Rina Sutradhar and Smt. Chandana Sutradhar till 12.11.2012, on which day by virtue of a registered sale deed, being No. 1-347, the previous owners transferred the title in favour of the writ petitioner.

There had been some amendments in respect of the sale deed, by the deed being 1-219, which was registered on 01.08.2014 whereby some rubber plantation and other forest produces over the said land was shown. To demonstrate the rate of the rubber wood and other properties the memorandum dated 18.05.2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Rubber Board has been relied by the writ petitioner. The said memorandum has been perused for purpose of quantifying the compensation, so far the plantation on the land is concerned.

Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that despite the notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC, the respondents did not provide the petitioner any compensation. Pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), there was an inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura. After the inquiry report was received, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura made a communication to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer on 16.03.2015 (part of Annexure-12 to the writ petition). In the said communication dated 16.03.2015, it has been observed as under:

"On further examination of the report, it appears that, the present owner of the land has not been paid neither the rent of land nor he has been paid due compensation, following the damaged & removal of rubber plantations since 1999 to till date."

In the inquiry report dated 11.03.2015 as submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it has been also observed that the owner of the land has already suffered financial loss for a long period of 16 years (from 1999 to 2015) for damage and removal of rubber trees by the police department. Various notes are enclosed with the said inquiry report including the map of the land which shows the location and other adjoining lands. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not vacated the land as yet and the land is still under their possession.

In reply to the submission of Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has categorically submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 had started vacating the land when this writ petition has been filed. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned G.A. has further submitted that the previous land owners did never claim damage as for security of that particular village the land owners volunteered their land for purpose of setting up of the police camp. Even now, those land owners have not raised any claim for compensation of the damage or for so called removal of the plantation. Without claiming any compensation, they have transferred the land in favour of the petitioner. As such, it is clear that they had no claim for the period when the title of the land was with them. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned G.A. has submitted that these are highly disputed facts and this court should be loath in exercising the special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for determining the compensation, which the writ petitioner is not entitled to or for determining the status of the occupation as such. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned G.A. has further submitted that at the instance of the respondents No. 2 and 3, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpur has made a re-inquiry. From the communication dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure-R/2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5), it would be apparent that at the intervention of the District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur the said re-inquiry commenced. From the re-inquiry report, it appears that there was no rubber plantation on the plot No. 548 of Khatian No. 790, under Mouja & Tehesil Natunbazar.

Having regard to the rival contentions as well as the records as produced with the writ petition and the counter-affidavits, this court is of the view that the respondents No. 2 and 3 could not have occupied the land without observance of the proper procedure of law or without proper documentation, if the possession of the land was voluntarily parted by the owners of the land waiving any claim. However, this court is of the considered view that the previous owners as stated, have abandoned any claim against the respondents. Therefore, the damage whatever has been caused to the land, the writ petitioner is entitled compensation for damage for the period from when the writ petitioner acquired title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 12.11.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) till the respondents No. 2 and 3 vacated the land as referred above. Since there was no legal procedure followed for requisition, this court is persuaded to direct the District Collector, Gomati Tripura to ascertain the damage vis-�-vis the land occupied by the respondents No. 2 and 3 as referred above, and make the award accordingly. The petitioner and the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be permitted to file their respective statement on their claim of compensation. If it appears necessary, the District Collector shall make a fresh inquiry as to the damage that has been suffered by the writ petitioner including the alleged removal of plantation from the land.

The petitioner and the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall also be permitted to adduce evidence in support of their claim, if they approached in the proceeding, for purpose of determining the compensation. The said exercise shall be completed within a period 6(six) months from the day when the writ petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the District Collector. If the land is not vacated as yet, the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall vacate the land positively within 3(three) months from today.

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate for onward transmission.