Gauhati High Court
Musstt Aisha Khatun vs State Of Assam & Ors on 23 March, 2012
Author: Anima Hazarika
Bench: Anima Hazarika
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,
MIZORAM, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LA Appeal No.35/2002
Musstt. Aisha Khatun,
W/o- Late Bidiujjamal,
Krishnai Guria,
Dist-Goalpara, Assam.
...APPELLANT
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
2. The Collector, Goalpara,
Dist-Goalpara.
...RESPONDENTS
LA Appeal No.36/2002
Md. Safiour Rahman, S/o- Late Giasuddin, Guria Rampur, Krishnai, Dist-Goalpara, Assam.
...APPELLANT
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
2. The Collector, Goalpara, Dist-Goalpara.
...RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA
Advocates for the appellant : Mr. PC Deka,
Senior Advocate,
Mr. SK Medhi,
Mr. M Sarma,
Mr. N Deka,
Advocates for the respondents : Mr. PS Deka,
Additional Senior Govt.
Advocate, Assam.
2
Date of hearing : 31.01.2012.
Date of delivery of judgment : 23.03.2012
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Heard Mr. PC Deka, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. PS Deka, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Issue involved in these two appeals and reliefs claimed for being the same, the appeals are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. The appellants two in numbers have assailed the legality and validity of the award dated 20.12.2001 passed by the reference court in LA Case No.13 of 1990 and LA Case No.15 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the reference court has awarded compensation @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only per bigha by holding that the appellants are not entitled for further compensation for zirat and cost for shifting of houses in absence of evidence in enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') before the Collector, directing to release the balance of value with interest @ 12 % per annum per bigha under Section 23(1) (A) of the Act from the date of publishing of Notification No.RLA-49/86/17 dated 17.7.1986 under Section 4 of the Act to the date of taking over possession of the land, i.e. 1987, including an interest under Section 28 of the Act on the excess market value 3 assessed @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land to the date of payment further holding that in addition to the market value of the land, the appellants will be entitled to 30% market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the Act.
4. The appellants' case in brief is that a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing acquisition of land measuring 40 Bighas 3 Kathas and 3 Lechas of village (i) Solpara Molandubi (ii) Krishnai Guri Part-I, (iii) Pub Dairang and (iv) Bamune Panikhowa under Matia Circle of Goalpara District for public purpose vide Government Notification No.RLA-49/86/17 dated 17.07.1986 for improvement of Krishnai-Mendipathar Road (NEC). The Collector of Goalpara had fixed the valuation of land under Guria Part-I @ Rs.1072/- (Rupees one thousand seventy two only) per bigha. The appellants herein had accepted the compensation awarded by the Collector, Goalpara under protest and submitted their objection before the Collector for reference under Section 18 of the Act, and accordingly, the matters were placed before the reference court along with all relevant materials. The learned District Judge, Goalpara vide Award and Decree dated 20.12.2001 enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees then thousand) only per bigha with enhanced statutory benefits under Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, directing the Collector, Goalpara to pay the balance amount with interest within one year failing which, further interest @ 15% shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the excess amount or part thereof which has to be paid into the Court before the date of such 4 expiry. The award and decree so passed are under challenge in these appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Act.
5. Two fold arguments have been advanced by Mr. Deka, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. Deka would contend that the reference court had committed an illegality in not considering the judgment and decree of the reference court passed in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 whereby the Court awarded the compensation @ Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha for the land acquired under the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act vide Ext. 2 which requires interference under appellate jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Deka, learned Senior counsel would further contend that the reference court while decreeing the case under Section 26 of the Act must ensure that the provisions of the Act is fully complied with in determining the compensation of the land under acquisition. In support of his submission, Mr. Deka had referred evidence on record, more particularly, Ext. 2. The judgment and decree of the reference court passed on 09.09.1996 in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990, the certified copy of which was produced by the appellants before the Collector for re- determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court as required under Section 28 A of the Act, but the Collector did not consider the same. Again a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1996 was produced before the reference court being Ext. 2. But the reference court also declined to enhance the compensation amount as awarded by another court for the same land vide the aforesaid award passed in Misc. LA Case No.9/1990, which 5 requires interference under Section 54 of the Act. The following decisions have been referred to in support of his contentions, viz.,
1. (1991) 1 SCC 174, Scheduled Caste Co-Operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda -vs- Union of India and Others,
2. AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 308 (Banta Singh and Others -
vs- Union of India and Ors.
7. Mr. PS Deka, learned State counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the evidence on record would show that the appellants herein have withheld the sale deeds executed in their favour by the vendee for proper determination of compensation and there is no illegality in determining the compensation made by the reference court which do not require to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Heard the argument advanced by the contesting parties. Perused the pleadings along with the evidence on record and the decisions referred to. The Court would take up the second question as first in order to determine as to whether the remedy available under Section 28(A) of the Act would be available in the case in hand.
9. A reading of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, would amply demonstrate that when the Court allows any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the persons interested in all other land covered by the same Notification under Section 4 (1) and who are also aggrieved 6 by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court, which is not the case in hand. Admittedly, the appellants herein sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against the award of compensation made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act being LA Case No.13 of 1990 and LA Case No.15 of 1990 and the case which has been referred as Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 where the reference court enhanced the compensation and therefore, the remedy available under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court passed on 09.09.1996 in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 is misconceived and therefore, the arguments advanced can not be accepted.
In the case referred and reported in (1991) 1 SCC 174, Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in re-determination of compensation, Section 28 A is not applicable where claimant has sought and secured a reference under Section 18 and has even preferred appeal to High Court against award of compensation. Hence the case of Scheduled Caste Co-operative (supra) has no application in regard to the argument advanced relating to Section 28-A of the Act and the court answered the question in negative.
In the case of Banta Singh reported in AIR 1988 P&H 308 (FB) (supra), the court held that Section 28-A of the Act, in terms is 7 applicable only to a case where the claimant had not asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the applicant or the person, who had not asked for reference, filing an application before the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court which re-determined the amount of compensation.
10. Now, the question left to be answered as to whether the judgment rendered by the reference court in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 enhancing the compensation to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha would be pressed into service though the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in these two appeals and whether the appellants apart from the benefits awarded by the reference court are entitled to the benefits provided under Section 23 whereof the court should take into consideration certain factors at the time of taking possession of the land by the Collector relating to standing crops or trees on the land vis- à-vis the reasonable expenses incurred for change of residence incidental to change.
11. In order to determine the above question, the court has gone through the evidence on record wherein in LA Case No.13/1990, the appellants as PW 1 has deposed that she had her house on the said land including zirats and one RCC ring well whereas the benefit of standing crops and shifting of residence were denied by the Collector. PW 2, Nur Jamal Hoque has stated that his house is adjacent to the house of Aisha Khatun (appellant). She had some betel nut, jackfruit, mango, bamboo and orange trees and a ring well on the said land including her own 8 houses and in the reference case he got Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only from the reference court as compensation. PW 2 also proved the certified copy of the order passed in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 vide Ext.2. Before the reference court, Atowar Rahman was examined as PW 3 who had stated that in the year 1985 he purchased 9 lechas of land at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only from one Bhupen Roy vide Ext. 3, sale deed. The land is situated at village Salpara Molandubi.
12. In case of the appellant in LA Case No.15/1990 Safior Rahman was examined before the reference court as PW 1 who had deposed that his land was acquired in the year 1986, but the process was started from the year 1981 and at the time of acquisition he had two Assam type houses with brick walls and two thatches house. He had further stated that for acquisition of land he had to shift his resident for which no compensation was paid. No compensation was given for the trees and removing the houses. The other witness Sohidur Rahman PW 3 had stated that his house was adjacent to the house of Safior and at the time of acquisition of land, there were four houses and some zirats on the said land and accordingly, the appellants had to shift those houses for construction of road. In the reference court, Atowar Rahman had deposed that he purchased 9 lechas of land at village Salpara Molandubi Part-I for Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only from one Bhupen Roy and had exhibited the aforesaid Sale Deed as Ext.1.
13. From the evidence on record and the judgment rendered by the reference court, it would reveal that the Collector had given some 9 compensation for zirats. But the appellants have failed to give the age, length and number of trees. Though the land was acquired in the year 1986 but the process was started in the year 1981 and therefore, it was conclusively proved that there was no new plantation or improvement on the said land after 1981 and in absence of production of the sale deeds by the appellants, the reference court found it difficult to assess the compensation in its true perspective and thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the reference court.
14. Now, the question to be answered as to whether the appellants are entitled to get equal treatment in case where the reference court has granted higher compensation under Section 18 in excess of the amount awarded under Section 11 by the Collector to some of the claimants, whose lands were also acquired alongwith the appellants herein vide the same Notification dated 17.7.1986. The appellants must be held to be the persons interested in all other lands covered by the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the amount of the compensation determined by the court as relatable to the land similarly situated, possessed of the same value or potentialities or else it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. In the case in hand, the certified copy of the judgment rendered by the reference court in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 has been exhibited as Ext.2 wherein the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha to the claimants similarly situated to that of the appellants. But the reference court in the case of two appellants herein has declined to enhance the 10 compensation to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) though the reference court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only per bigha and granted all other benefits as provided under the Act. The judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 is a fact in issue is relevant in these two appeals under the Act, inasmuch as, Section 43 of the Evidence Act provides, when the judgments are relevant in determining the case, the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant. The appellants have proved and exhibited the judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 as Ext.2 which is a fact in issue and is relevant but the reference court did not consider the judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990. Therefore, ordinarily the Court would have been satisfied in granting compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha to the appellants as they are similarly situated to those who have received the same amount as compensation under the same notification for plots of land contiguous to the respective appellants.
16. However, the appellant in LA Appl No. 35/2002 has chosen to value the appeal at Rs.22,500/- only. Similarly, the appellant in LA Appl No. 36/2002 has chosen to value his appeal at Rs.12,000/- only. The appellants have also not filed any application for enhancing the value of their respective appeals by additional payment of ad valorem court fees over and above what they had already paid at the time of filing of their appeals. In such circumstances, the Court is left with no option other than to enhance the rate of compensation from Rs.10,000/- per bigha to Rs.25,000/- per bigha but, at the same time, if the amounts of compensation payable to the appellants become higher than the 11 amount at which the respective appeals have been valued (i.e Rs.22,500/- for LA Appl No.35/2002 and Rs.12,000/- for LA Appl No.36/2002), then the appellants shall be entitled only to the latter amount (i.e. the amount at which the respective appeals have been valued and the court fees paid thereon). However, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the other benefits rendered under the decree of the reference court. Keeping these observations in mind, the Collector, Goalpara is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation (if any) to both the appellants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of the notification (17.07.1986) to the date of taking over possession of the land i.e. 1987. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order rendered by this Court.
17. With the above modifications, these two appeals are disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
18. Send down the lower court records.
JUDGE gunajit