Gauhati High Court
Md. Atikur Rahman Talukdar vs The Union Of India And 8 Ors on 5 April, 2019
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010212392015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 4800/2015
1:MD. ATIKUR RAHMAN TALUKDAR
S/O LT. HAMID ALI, R/O DAMPUR, P.O. and P.S. HAJO, DIST- KAMRUP
RURAL, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS
REP. BY ITS SECY. TO THE DEPTT. OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-1, INDIA
2:THE INDIA OIL CORPORATION LTD.
A. REGISTERED OFFICE- INDIA OIL BHAWAN
G.9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST
MUMBAI-51
3:2.B. HEAD OFFICE- SCOPE COMPLEX CORE-2
7 INSTITUTIONAL AREA
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-3
4:2.C. CORPORATE OFFICE- 3079/3J.B. TITO MARG
SADIQ NAGAR
NEW DELHI-49
REP. BY ITS THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
5:K.K. HANDIQUE
THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATION
IOC LTD.
SECTOR 3
NOONMATI
GHY-20
ASSAM
6:THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Page No.# 2/5
HEAD OFFICE- PETROLEUM HOUSE 17
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD
MUMBAI-20
MAHARASTRA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
7:HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
MARKETING HEAD OFFICE- 8 SHOORJI VALLABHDAS MARG
BALLARD EASTE
MUMBAI-1
MAHARASHTRA
8:REGIONAL HEAD
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
GUWAHATI RETAIL REGION HEAD JANPATH ROAD
ULUBRI
GHY-7
9:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY SECY. TO THE DEPTT. OF REVENUE
DISPUR
GHY-6
10:THE DY. COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF ASSAM
KAMRUP METRO
PANBAZAR
GHY-01
11:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR CIRCLE
DISPUR
GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M R ISLAMR-4-6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
05.04.2019 Heard Mr. G. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Ms. M. D. Bora, Page No.# 3/5 learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Also heard Mr. A. Zahir, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6.
2. By this writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has projected that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 2B covered by Dag No. 319 of Village-Betkuchi under Mouza Beltola in the district of Kamrup vide registered Sale Deed No. 6789/1993. Owing to wrong mentioning of the Dag number of the land, a Deed of Rectification bearing registered Deed No. 1669/1996 was executed and registered. For reasons as stated in the writ petition, it is projected that the petitioner had to leave Guwahati and when he returned back he found that the land was encroached by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and some illegal constructions had come up on the land.
3. It is projected that on an enquiry he found that the land had remained mutated in his name without changing their name of owner of his land. It is projected that despite representation submitted before the Circle Officer as well as despite his RTI application, appropriate replies had not been provided and therefore, by this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for handing over of the physical and vacant possession of the said 2 Bigha land to the petitioner by removing the respondent and for payment of Rs.1,28,00,000/- with usual bank interest at the rate of Rs.1.00 Lakh per month as rent for the said land and for other reliefs.
4. The stand of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the land in question is not under their occupation. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 has submitted that land in question was acquired with other piece and parcels of land vide LA Case No. 18/1995, LA Case No. 2/1999 and LA Case No. 2/1998 and accordingly, the requisite land acquisition award was deposited with the authorities and thereafter, by obtaining the necessary NOC, the construction of the oil depot was completed. The relevant records of the LA Case No. 18/1995, LA Case No. 2/1999 and LA Case No. 2/1998 are annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. It is submitted that this particular land was covered by LA Case No.18/1995.
5. The learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.8 in support of the statement made therein, pursuant to order dated 13.03.2019, the relevant land Page No.# 4/5 acquisition records has been produced in original.
6. On perusal of the original records, it appears that the payment of Rs.4,26,000/- against the land acquisition compensation was paid to the petitioner on 03.05.1997 and accordingly, refund voucher for the said amount was duly received under his signature in the award register under his signature on revenue stamp dated 08.05.1997.
7. On the said entries being shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that it is a matter of dispute as to whether the petitioner had himself received the compensation or somebody else had received the land acquisition compensation due to him.
8. Having noticed from the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.8 as well as affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 is that the land in question was a part of the land acquired vide LA Case No. 18/1995 and having seen that as per the award Register and the relevant order-sheet of the said LA Case, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and he had received the refund voucher for the land acquisition payment of Rs.4,26,000/- on 08.05.1997, this Court finds that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be allowed.
9. In the case of Mutha Associates & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 13 SCC 304, it the Supreme Court of India has stated that the view taken by the Constitution Bench in Aflatoon & Ors. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285 has been reiterated by another Constitution Bench decision in Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1973) 4 SCC 296. It was further stated that to the same effect are the decisions of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 501; Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1993) Suppl 2 SCC 20; and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 387. Accordingly, it was stated that the common thread that runs through all these decisions is that in order to succeed in a challenge to the acquisition proceedings the interested person must remain vigilant and watchful. If instead of doing so, the interested person allows grass to grow under his feet he cannot invoke the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed that the failure of the Page No.# 5/5 interested persons to seek redress at the appropriate stage and without undue delay would in such cases give rise to an inference that they have waived of their objections to the acquisitions. Accordingly, it is seen that this Court can decline to invoke their powers of judicial review to interfere with the acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution if the challenge to such proceedings is belated and the explanation offered a mere moon shine as is the position in the case at hand.
10. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he disputes the receipt of payment, it is needless to say that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the non- receipt of compensation, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance in appropriate forum and manner in accordance with law.
11. Therefore, as the possession of the acquired land of the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 cannot be said to be illegal or without due process of law, the petitioner is not found to be entitled to any relief in this writ petition.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
14. The records as produced by the learned Govt. Advocate is returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant