Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
SUBHASH BAROI & 2 ORS. - PETITIONERS
Vs.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.5946/2009
Decided on : 18.03.2014
Land Acquisition - Legal Heirs - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 2(b), Sections 3A to 3J - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Highways Act, 1956, emphasizing that a person entitled to compensation is a 'person interested' and need not prove title over the land. The court highlighted the evidentiary value of a registered sale deed as superior evidence of title over the land, and the lack of corresponding entry in the revenue record does not affect ownership. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of compensation in favor of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order declaring respondent No. 7 entitled to land acquisition compensation for the acquired land. The petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of the landowner and sought the remaining 50% of the compensation. The District Administration finalized the compensation amount but did not release the payment. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner held in favor of respondent No. 7, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner erred in solely considering the revenue record and rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The court emphasized the superior evidentiary value of the registered sale deed and the lack of necessity to prove title in a land acquisition compensation claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the compensation was directed to be released in favor of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to land acquisition compensation for the acquired land, the legal heirs' claim, and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner's reliance on the revenue record to reject the petitioners' claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person interested in land acquisition compensation need not prove title over the land and emphasized the superior evidentiary value of a registered sale deed. The lack of corresponding entry in the revenue record does not affect ownership. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner's reliance on the revenue record alone was deemed erroneous.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the compensation determined by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was directed to be released in favor of the petitioners.
This case was heard on 11.03.2014 and today is fixed for delivery of order.
2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon in MC No. 1/2008 declaring that respondent No. 7 is entitled to land acquisition compensation for acquisition of the land in question.
3. Case of the petitioner is that they are the legal heirs of Late Gobinda Chandra Baroi. Father of the petitioners had purchased a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 3 Kathas 19 lechas covered by KP Patta No. 21 Dag No. 83 (Old)/635 (New) of Village No. 1 Nowapara under Bijni Revenue Circles in the district of Bongaigaon from one Maheshwar Roy on 21.02.1959 by executing a registered sale deed. He had also purchased two other plots of land measuring 3 kathas 8 lechas and 3 bighas 2 kathas 11 lechas covered by KP Patta No. 72 Dag No. 290 and KP Patta No. 72 Dag No. 82 (Old)/634 (New) respectively of Village No. 1 Nowapara under Bijni Revenue Circle from one Nareswar Roy on 19.02.1959. Both Maheshwar Roy and Nareswar Roy were brothers.
4. National Highway Authority of India acquired land in the said village in the year 1968 for construction of National Highway (NH) 31. The acquired land included land of petitioners’ father measuring 3 bighas 12 leches covered by KP Patta No. 21 Dag No. 83 (Old)/635(New) and 1 Katha 14 lechas covered by KP Patta No. 72 Dag No. 82 (Old)/634(New).
5. Father of the petitioners received land acquisition compensation to the extent of 50% of the total compensation for acquisition of his aforesaid two plots of land in the year 1969. However, the remaining 50% is yet to be paid.
6. Father of the petitioners expired on 20.04.1995.
7. District Administration of Bongaigaon district finalized the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners being the legal heirs of Late Gobinda Chandra Baroi but for one reason or the other the payment was not paid. It may be mentioned that the legal heirs of Late Maheshwar Roy also claimed compensation for acquisition of the said land as they contended that the land belonged to them. At this stage, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4101/2009 which was disposed of on 22.09.2009 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon to decide on the rival claims to compensation in accordance with law.
8. Following order of this Court, impugned order dated 09.12.2009 was passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon holding that respondent No. 7 being the legal heir of Late Maheshwar Roy is entitled to the remaining 50% of the compensation i.e. Rs. 4,43,040.00 and rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
9. Hence, this writ petition.
10. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 representing the District Administration, Bongaigaon district have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that as per record, land measuring 3 bighas 12 lechas covered by Patta No. 21 Dag No. 83 (Old)/635 (New) of Village No. 1 Nowapara under Bijni Revenue Circle was acquired by the then Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kokrajhar on 23.05.1969, which did not stand in the name of Late Gobinda Chandra Baroi. But land measuring 3 Kathas 7 lechas under Patta No. 21 Dag No. 83 (Old)/635(New) of village No. 1 Nowapara under Bijni Revenue Circle was mutated in favour of Late Gobinda Chandra Baroi on 21.04.1969. It is stated that initially land acquisition compensation in respect of the acquired land measuring 3 bighas 12 lechas was wrongly prepared in favour of Late Gobinda Chandra Baroi. Since late Gobinda Chandra Baroi had purchased the land in question from late Maheshwar Roy, then his name should have been mutated in the land records. Since his name is not mutated in the land records, late Gobinda Chandra Baroi was not entitled to receive any compensation for land acquisition and consequently, petitioners being the legal heirs of late Gobinda Chandra Baroi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
