Khatians do not constitute title deeds; landowners must prove ownership via documentary evidence for land acquisition compensation.

The Appellant (N.F. Railway) challenged the judgment and award dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Sabroom, in Case No. CM L.A. 103 of 2022

The L.A. Judge had enhanced the compensation payable to the Respondent-claimants, who were the legal heirs of late Rabi Chandra Tripura

The Appellant contended that the lower court failed to frame issues regarding the claimants' title or ownership, noting that no title deeds were produced and the claimants relied solely on khatians, which do not constitute proof of ownership

1. Whether the L.A. Judge erred in enhancing compensation without framing a specific issue or requiring evidence regarding the claimants' title and ownership of the acquired land

2. Whether the findings of the lower court based solely on khatians can be sustained as proof of ownership for the purpose of disbursing public funds

The Court applied the principle of judicial scrutiny over land titles in acquisition proceedings, asserting that no person is entitled to compensation from the government exchequer unless they prove ownership through oral and documentary evidence

It emphasized that while genuine land losers must be compensated, "unauthorized persons" are not entitled to a "bonanza"

The Court further applied the procedural principle of remand, as established in its own precedents, to ensure that the L.A. Judge considers fundamental ownership issues before awarding enhanced compensation

The Court observed that the trial court failed to frame any issue regarding the claimants' entitlement to seek compensation

It noted that the record lacked title deeds or support for the claim beyond khatians, which are insufficient to establish legal ownership

The Court reasoned that the lower court had bypassed necessary evidentiary procedures to confirm if the claimants were indeed the owners of the subject land

Aligning with its own consistent practice in similar matters, the High Court determined that the matter must be reconsidered to ensure public funds are only paid to rightful owners

The Court remanded the case back to the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, directing the Judge to: (i) frame a specific issue on the point of title deeds to decide ownership; (ii) provide both parties an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence; and (iii) decide the matter afresh following proper legal procedure

The appeal was accordingly disposed of