North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (Neepco) vs. Monoara Begum And 16 Ors.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

1. L.A. App. No.127/2019

North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), Represented by the Head of Project.

----Appellant(s)

Versus

Nurul Islam and another

-----Respondent(s)

Along with

2. L.A. App. No.128/2019

Versus

North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), Represented by the Head of Project.

----Appellant(s)

-----Respondent(s)

Monoara Begam and others

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Senapati, Advocate, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate, Mr. S.C. Das, Advocate.

3. CO(FA) No.03/2021

Monoara Begam and others

----Appellant(s)

Versus

North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) and another -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate,<br>Mr. S.C. Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate,<br>Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY Order

10/03/2022

For convenience, both the appeals and the cross objection are taken up together for disposal.

Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Senapati appearing for the appellant (NEEPCO) as well as learned senior counsel Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel Mr. S.C. Das appearing for the claimants (private respondents)/cross-objectors and learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam for the respondent-L.A. Collector.

In CO(FA) No.03 of 2021, the claimants have filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to bring certain additional documents on record. The learned counsel for the requisitioning respondent/requiring department raises objections to the same inter alia on the ground that the documents sought to be introduced in the cross objection are documents much beyond the date of the actual notification of acquisition.

In reply, the learned counsel for the cross-objectors submits that even documents subsequent to the date of notification are material to assist the Land Acquisition authorities to determine the actual value of the land as on the date of the notification.

It appears from the impugned awards passed by the Land Acquisition Court that no evidence was led by the State or by the requiring department. On the other hand, only one sale deed was produced on behalf of the claimants and marked as Exhibit-1. The learned L.A. Judge did not place reliance on the same for reasons recorded in the awards. In view of such a situation and keeping in view the fact that an application has been moved before this Court seeking to bring on record certain documents, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned award(s), remand the matters back to the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge and afford opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, within a limited period to be fixed by the Court below and to lead other oral evidence, if any, in support of their respective stand.

In view of the aforesaid, both awards dated 21.06.2019 giving rise to the present appeals as well as the cross objection stand set aside. Matters are remanded back to the Court of the learned L.A. Judge with further direction that effort should be made by the learned L.A. Judge as

well as the parties concerned to cooperate with the Court below and ensure disposal of the matters afresh within a period of six months from today.

Learned counsel for all parties are at liberty to file a certified copy of this order before the learned L.A. Judge.

In order to ensure early conclusion of the matter before the learned L.A. Judge, parties are directed to appear through their counsel on 28.03.2022. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to ensure that this order reaches the office of the L.A. Judge adequately in advance.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the NEEPCO that they have deposited certain amount with the Registrar General of this Court pursuant to directions issued by this Court.

In view of the order of remand, the Registrar General is directed to retain the amount in fixed deposit as it exists as on date and the said amount shall be subject to directions and orders passed by the Land Acquisition Judge. In other words, release of the said amount shall also be directed as per the final adjudication that would be made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge on remand. If the fixed deposit made is due to lapse at any time, then the fixed deposit be extended for at least a period of 9 (nine) months from now.

The appeals and cross objection stand disposed of in terms of

the aforesaid directions.

Stay order, if any, stands vacated.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Send the lower court records forthwith.