Sri Prabir Chandra Roy and another v. The State of Tripura and 4 others
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2024-09-05. Sri Prabir Chandra Roy and another v. The State of Tripura and 4 others. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No. 561 of 2024 Sri Prabir Chandra Roy and Anr. ………Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & Ors. …….. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Debnath, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI. Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocate. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD ORDER 05. 09. 2024 Heard Mr. S. S Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent-Union of India. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. [2] Mr. S. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits before this court that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents herein for the purpose of construction of the railway line from Agartala to Sabroom in c/w this notices were also served upon the petitioners for awarding compensation.
Thereafter, the petitioners submitted relevant documents for making payment of the awarded amount and to refer the matter to the competent court for determination of adequate compensation but till date no action has been taken by the concerned respondents. [3] Mr. Debnath, learned counsel also submits that on several occasions the petitioners have requested the respondent-officials for taking necessary steps but all their efforts ended in smoke. [4] Heard and perused the evidence on record. [5] After perusal of the record, it has been seen that the notices were served by the concerned respondents upon the petitioners on 01. 07. 2014 and 24. 11. 2014. The petitioners herein served a legal notice on 16. 11. 2023 to the concerned respondents and on 23. 08. 2024 the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition, as such there is a long delay of about 10 years which falls under the purview of delay and laches.
The petitioners have also failed to prove any written representation before the concerned respondents in the meantime. [6] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands dismissed for delay and laches. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail remedy if available, under law. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed. JUDGE Paritosh Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2024. 09. 13 SINGHA 12:06:27 +05'30'
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.