Gauhati High Court
Shri Santanu Kr. Barua & 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 6 June, 2016
Author: N. Chaudhury
Bench: N. Chaudhury
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
RSA No.151 of 2016
Sri Santanu Kumar Barua & 2 others ... ... Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Assam ... ... ... Respondents.
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY For the appellants : Mr. U. C. Rabha, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. G. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam.
Date of hearing : 06.06.2016.
Date of Judgment : 06.06.2016.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. U. C. Rabha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. The suit of the present appellants as plaintiffs for declaration that they are entitled to compensation under Section 13 RSA No.151/2016 Page 1 of 5 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed by the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2011. Title Appeal No.94/2011 preferred there-against at the instance of plaintiffs stood also dismissed on 06.01.2015 on the ground that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and that no declaratory decree can be passed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 unless a prayer for consequential relief is prayed for. These concurrent findings of the learned Courts below have been called in question in the present Second Appeal.
3. The present appellants as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.129/2011 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Dhubri stating that land measuring 1321 BIghas 4 Kathas 13 Lessas covered by about 188 dags under 16 khatians described in the schedule to the plaint were acquired by the Government in Ceiling Case No.198/59-60 vide Notification dated 04.06.1964. The land originally belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiffs but although the respondents were duty bound to make payment of compensation within a period of five years from the date of acquisition, yet, the same was not paid. Under such circumstances a notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the defendants on 04.11.2011 under registered cover, however, to no avail. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to compensation in terms of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act and now that the amount has not been paid they are RSA No.151/2016 Page 2 of 5 entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of compensation. Accordingly, the following prayers were made :-
"i) For a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation @ rate of 50 times on annual land revenue paid @ 1.50-/ per bigha amounting to Rs.99,150/-
for the total land measuring 1321 B. 14 K. 13 Lecha mentioned in schedule below & notification dtd. 4.6.64.
ii) For a decree of declaration for payment of interest @ rate of 12 % P.A. on the principal amount of compensation of Rs.99,150/- from the date of acquisition dtd. 4.6.64 till the time of payment of compensation.
iii) For a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of Solatium for delayed, damages, paid & sufferings for long about 48 yrs from the date of acquisition of an amount of rs.5,00,000/- in lump-sum together with costs of legal notice of Rs.5,000/-.
iv) For a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay the compensation money within a specified period of time preferably within 3 (three) months from the date of order.
v) For a decree of costs of this suit and any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled to law & equity."
4. The defendant did not file any written statement and did not contest the proceeding. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Court framed two points for determination and proceeded to decide the suit ex parte. The learned trial Court thereafter by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2011 dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.94/2011 RSA No.151/2016 Page 3 of 5 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, who by judgment and decree dated 06.01.2015 dismissed the same not only on the ground of limitation but also holding that the suit being a merely declaratory one it was not maintainable in terms of provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. These two judgments have been called in question in the present Second Appeal.
5. The facts as narrated above were not disputed by the respondent. In that event it is clear that predecessors of the plaintiffs owned and possessed the suit land measuring 1321 BIghas 4 Kathas 13 Lessas. The aforesaid land was taken away by the Government under the provisions of the Act of 1956 by a notification dated 04.06.1964 which has been proved as Ext-1 in the present suit. The PW 1 deposed on oath that they paid land revenue at the rate of Rs.1.50 per bigha in average of the land acquired from them and they became entitled to compensation under Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides that compensation may be paid in cash in one or more equal installments within five years from the date of acquisition. In the proviso to Section 13(a) of the Act it is further provided that if the amount is not paid within a period of six months from the date of acquisition, in that event, interest at the rate of 2.50 % per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance compensation. A recital of the aforesaid section shows that payment has to be made within a period of five years from the date of acquisition. In the instant case acquisition was made in the year RSA No.151/2016 Page 4 of 5 1964 and thus five years period expired in the year 1969. The plaintiffs were very much aware that the amount ought to have been paid on or before 04.06.1969 and so the cause of action arose on 05.06.1969 itself. The plaintiffs were at liberty to institute the suit thereafter for realization of the aforesaid amount along with interest within a period of three years from 05.06.1969 but the same not having been done the suit of the plaintiffs became barred by limitation. Both the learned courts below have concurrently held the aforesaid facts and have held that the suit is barred by limitation as it has been instituted only in the year 2011.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the two judgments passed by the learned Courts below I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the matter as to whether the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below can be said to be perverse or not based on the materials available on record. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.
JUDGE T U Choudhury RSA No.151/2016 Page 5 of 5