logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 282 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : WP(C) No. 361 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Parties : Mekhlipara Tea Company Limited, Represented through its manager Mr. Amiya Kanti Biswas, Tripura & Another Versus The State of Tripura & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: DJ. Saha, Advocate. For the Respondent: SM. Chakraborty, Advocate General, Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 15-06-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 THC 737,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Not mentioned.

2. Catch Words:
- Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
- The petitioner, a tea estate, claimed ownership of land acquired by the respondents and sought compensation pending before an arbitrator.
- The petitioner later moved to withdraw the writ petition, invoking the liberty to do so under law.
- The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, expressed no objection to the withdrawal.
- The Court observed that claimants must establish title through proper deed documents, not merely revenue entries.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution, with liberty granted to the petitioner to withdraw.
- The Court left open any future legal objections by the respondents and ordered closure of any pending miscellaneous applications.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

[1] This present writ petition is filed by the petitioner tea estate claiming that the petitioner is the owner of the land and also is having title. In view of the acquisition made by the respondents, the petitioner sought for compensation and the matter was pending with the arbitrator and since, the same was not decided by the competent authority, the petitioner is before this Court.

[2] When the case is called Mr. DJ Saha, learned counsel representing Mr. BN Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that the petitioner side wants to withdraw the case with liberty available under law. Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State submits that the respondents have no objection with the same.

[3] It is pertinent to observe that invariably in all matters relating to land acquisition, this Court has consistently following that in the event, if any person claiming to be the owner of the acquired land needs to satisfy the competent authority or the court of law while claiming the adequate compensation under the act by duly establishing the title of property with relevant title deed documents as recognized under law. It is hardly necessary to observe that revenue entries or khatians, by themselves, do not confer title to ownership.

[4] However, in view of the submission made by both the parties, this instant writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution with liberty available under law. It is also made clear that all the legal and factual objections that can be raised by the respondents in future lis is kept open.

[5] As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal