Court holds that mere historical entry of deceased cultivator in revenue records does not entitle heirs to compensation without evidence of continued cultivation or tenancy at acquisition time
In a significant judgment dated September 24, 2026, the Tripura High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Santi Chiran, representing the legal heirs of the deceased cultivator (Korfa Raiyat) Dajindra Garo. The petition sought apportionment of compensation awarded for land acquired for the construction of National Highway 08 (NH-08(44)) in Gomati District, Tripura.
The dispute arose because the compensation award in the land acquisition proceedings (case Nos. 8/U/2016 and 13/U/2015) named Dajindra Garo as a Korfa Raiyat entitled to compensation. However, Dajindra Garo had died in 1986, nearly three decades before the acquisition notification in 2015. The petitioner, as attorney for the heirs, claimed their right to share in the compensation based on their succession rights under Christian personal law and survival certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
The Competent Authority for NH-08(44) rejected the claim, stating that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing their right, title, or interest over the acquired land at the time of acquisition. The petitioner further requested that the dispute be referred to the District Judge under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, a request that was not granted, prompting the writ petition.
The Court thoroughly examined the status of a "Korfa" or "Korfa Raiyat" under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, which defines such persons as under-raiyats (sub-tenants) who cultivate land under an agreement with the recorded raiyat (landowner). The Court highlighted that while the interest of an under-raiyat is heritable, it is not transferable and is contingent upon continued cultivation and tenancy.
Relying on the undisputed facts, the Court found that neither Dajindra Garo's heirs nor successors had cultivated the land after his death, nor had they secured mutation of their names as cultivators or established any tenancy or possession rights. Compensation for the acquired land was not awarded in favor of the Korfa or his heirs in the acquisition awards, and compensation for structures and trees was granted to other parties. The Court emphasized that old entries in revenue records alone cannot justify a claim to compensation.
Referring to binding precedents from the Supreme Court, including Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, Narendra Bahadur Singh v. State of UP, Inder Parshad v. Union of India, and others, the Court reiterated that only persons with subsisting legal rights on the date of acquisition notification are entitled to claim compensation or seek apportionment. Where such rights have lapsed or been extinguished before acquisition, heirs cannot revive or claim compensation based on historical tenancy.
Consequently, the Tripura High Court upheld the order of the Competent Authority rejecting the petitioners' claim and declined to direct a reference to the District Judge under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, as no genuine dispute regarding entitlement existed. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the legal heirs of a deceased cultivator who ceased cultivation decades before acquisition cannot claim compensation merely by succession or old revenue record entries.
This judgment clarifies the limited scope of compensation claims for under-raiyats and their heirs under Indian land acquisition law and reinforces the necessity of continuous and subsisting cultivation or tenancy rights at the time of acquisition for entitlement.
Bottom Line:
National Highways Act, 1956 Section 3H(4) Acquisition of land - Claim for apportionment of compensation by legal heirs of deceased Korfa/under-raiyat - Mere old entry of deceased Korfa in revenue record does not entitle his heirs to compensation when no evidence shows continued cultivation, subsisting tenancy, possession, mutation or enforceable right on date of acquisition - Competent Authority need not make reference under Section 3H(4) when no genuine dispute regarding entitlement exists - Writ dismissed.
Statutory provision(s):
National Highways Act, 1956 Section 3H(4), Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 Sections 2(v), 108, 118, 119, 125, 126
