SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Gau) 28

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.N.Sarma, K.Lahiri, JJ.
Phongseh Misao -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Land Acquisition -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 572 of 1975 (35 of 1975)
Decided On : 16-06-1976

Advocates Appeared:
L.Nanda Kumar Singh

A reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, presupposes the existence of a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. A mere doubt about the eligibility of a person to receive the compensation does not constitute a dispute within the meaning of Section 30.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 30 - REFERENCE TO DISTRICT JUDGE - DISPUTE AS TO APPORTIONMENT OR PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The Government of Manipur acquired land from the petitioner, the headman of Nungphou village, for the construction of government offices. The Collector awarded compensation to the petitioner after an enquiry. However, the Government doubted the petitioner's eligibility to receive the compensation and requested the Collector to refer the matter to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the reference made by the Collector to the District Judge was without jurisdiction. There was no dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the persons to whom it was payable. The Government's mere doubt about the petitioner's eligibility did not constitute a dispute within the meaning of Section 30. The Court also observed that the Government's claim that the land was Government khas land or that it was the owner of the land comprised in the village was barred by the principle of estoppel.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to make a reference to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the absence of a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the persons to whom it was payable? 2. Whether the Government's claim that the land was Government khas land or that it was the owner of the land comprised in the village was barred by the principle of estoppel?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, presupposes the existence of a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. A mere doubt about the eligibility of a person to receive the compensation does not constitute a dispute within the meaning of Section 30. 2. The Government's claim that the land was Government khas land or that it was the owner of the land comprised in the village was barred by the principle of estoppel, as the Government had described the land in such a manner as to negative the suggestion that it was Government land and had conducted the land acquisition proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the land being Government land.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the reference made by the Collector to the District Judge, and directed the respondents to pay the compensation money to the petitioner in terms of the award made by the Collector.

B. N. SARMA, J.:- This is an applica­tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Reference made by the Collector, Manipur North Dis­trict, Karong, to the District Judge, Manipur under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) in L. A. Case No. 1 of 1972 and for a writ of the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 59,616/-awarded as compensation by the Collector in respect of the acquired land. The Collector of North District,1 Manipur, the State of Manipur and the Secretary, Government of Manipur, Development Department have been arrayed as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respec­tively. The relevant facts may be stated, in brief, as below.

2. The village Nungphou is a hill vil­lage within the North District, Manipur, and it is one of the villages grouped under the Sadar Circle No. 1 under the piovisions of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administra­tion) Regulation, 1947. The petitionei is the headman of this village and he has been in exclusive possession of the lands of the Tillage realising house tax from the residents of the village for the purpose of paying the same to the Government.

3. While the petitioner was the owner hi occupation of the lands of the village, in 1965-66 the respondents took possession of an area of 12.99 acres of land in the said village without any authority, for the pur­pose of construction of some houses for some Government office on the assumption that it was Government khas land. Thereupon the petitioner filed successive applications (Annexures A/3 to A/6) to the respondents, paying for arranging to pay reasonable compen­sation to him for the land so occupied stat­ing that it was his land. At last on the basis of the application at Annexure A/3, the 'Gov­ernment of Manipur caused an enquiry to be made by the S. D. O. Mao Sadar Hill Subdivi­sion to ascertain whether the land in question belongs to the petitioner and falls within his Village Nuncphou or it is Government khas land. The said S. D. O., after an enquiry submitted a report on 1-7-1966 to the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur (Annexure A/7) stat­ing that the land in question falls within the village of the petitioner and is not Govern­ment khas land.

4. On receipt of the enquiry report from the S. D. O., Mao Sadar Subdivision, as above, the Government of Manipur decid­ed to acquire the land in question and issued a preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide Noti­fication No. 8/25/63-D dated 28th June, 1969 (Annexure A/8), which was duly published. A copy of this Notification was separately sent to the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 issued a Notification No. DC(N) 6/26 dated 2-5-1972 under Section 9 of the Act (Annexure A/10). A copy of this Notification was also separately sent to the petitioner ask­ing him to appear before the Collector on 12-6-1972 to state the nature of his claim and the amount and particulars of his claim. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and lodged an objection as to the area of the land acquired which was notified as measuring 11 acres approximately, but which actually measured 12.99 acres. The acquisition case was registered as L. A. case No. 1 of 1972. Except the petitioner no other person appeared before the Collector to lay any claim to the land or to the com­pensation in respect of the same. After due enquiry the Collector made an award in favour of the petitioner granting Rs. 59,616/-as compensation for 12.99 acres of land, at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The award was made on 29-1-1973. On the same day the respondent No. 1 wrote to the respondent No. 3 to make available the sum of Rupees 59.616/- for payment to the petitioner vide his letter dated 29-1-1973 (Annexure A/14). In spite of this letter from the respondent No. 1 and also repeated requests from the petitioner the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 avoid­ed payment on


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top