Back
1994 Supreme(Gau) 106
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.N.Singh Neelam, J.N.Sarma, JJ.
Collector, Mawkyrwat Sub-Division -Appellant
Versus
Wardington Lyngdoh and Ors. -Respondent
36 of 1992
Decided On : 07-06-1994
D.S.Lyngdoh, SS Dey, N.M.Lahiri, G.Kakati, D.K.Das, B.Dutta, A.M.Majumdar, M.Nath
A person who has accepted compensation for land acquisition without protest is not entitled to claim for enhanced rate under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - ACCEPTANCE OF AWARD WITHOUT PROTEST - BAR TO ENHANCEMENT - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION - BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIMANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The Collector of Mawkyrwat Sub-Division acquired land for the construction of an Explosive Magazine at Mawten Village. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq.m. for paddy field, Rs.4/- per sq.m. for forest land, and Rs.3/- per sq.m. for arable land. All interested parties received compensation, and 6 persons filed applications for enhancement under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Judicial Officer, Shillong, enhanced the compensation and paid 30% solatium on the enhanced market value of the land, 12% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of notification, and 9% interest on the excess amount from the date of payment of the decretal amount.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the claimants had accepted the compensation money/award without any protest at the time of receipt. Therefore, they had no right to claim for enhanced rate under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Judicial Officer had no jurisdiction to enhance the claim as done by him in the reference cases No.31 (M) to 36 (M)/90, and the claimants would be entitled only to the compensation awarded by the Collector and not entitled to any enhancement.
Issues: 1. Whether the claimants have any cause of action? 2. Whether the petition is barred by the principle of acquiescence, waiver, estoppel, res judicata, and limitation? 3. Whether the amount of award made was just, fair, adequate, and equitable and whether the petitioners received the amount of award under protest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the claimants had accepted the compensation money/award without any protest at the time of receipt. Therefore, they had no right to claim for enhanced rate under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The Court also held that the Special Judicial Officer had no jurisdiction to enhance the claim as done by him in the reference cases No.31 (M) to 36 (M)/90, and the claimants would be entitled only to the compensation awarded by the Collector and not entitled to any enhancement.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decrees passed by the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong, in LA Case No.31 (M)/90 to 36 (M)/90 were set aside and quashed. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.91 passed by Shri OP Lytand, Special Judicial Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong in LA Case No.31 (M) to 36 (M) of 1990.
2. The brief facts are as follows : The Collector Mawkyrwat Sub-Division on behalf of the PWD Department acquired some of land for construction of Explosive Magazine at Mawten Village near Mawkyrwat. The Collector gave the award as follows :
(a) Paddy field … Rs.9/-per sq.m.
(b) Forest Land ... Rs.4/- per sq. m.
(c) Arable Land ... Rs.3/-per sq. m.
3. Compensation was paid to all the interested parties. There was 13 interested parties. All of them received compensation money and out of it, 6 persons claimed the enhancement by filing an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, 6 Misc. Cases were registered. They are as follows :
(i) Shri Wardington Lyngdoh - Misc Case No.31 (M)/90
(ii) Shri Dwelishen Kharlyngdoh - Misc Case No. 32 (M)/90
(iii) Ka Kriep Nongsiej - Misc Case No. 33 (M)/90
(iv) Ka Shering Nongsiej - Misc Case No. 34 (M)/90
(v) Ka Kbintina Tongwah - Misc Case No. 35 (M)/90
(vi) Shri Leningstar Tongwah - Misc Case No. 36 (M)/90
4. The learned Special Judicial Officer, Shillong by his judgment and decree enhanced the compensation and paid 30% Solatium on the above enhanced market value of the land and 12% interest per annum on the enhanced amount wef 6.12.88 ie the date of notification and further rate of interest @ 9% on the excess amount wef 5.7.88 to the date of payment of the decretal amount in Court.
5. All 6 cases were taken up for hearing together and common judgment was passed but separate decrees were drawn up. Before the learned Judge, the following witnesses were examined : (i) CPWI - Wardington Lyngdoh; (ii) DK Lyngdoh; (iii) Ka Kriep Nongsiej; (iv) Ka Shering Nongsiej- (v) Ka Kbintina Tongwah. (vi) Leningstar Tongwah; (vii) W.Lyngdoh. (viii) D.Lyngkhoi. (ix) Everlin Snaitang; (xi) Kumari Kwar Knar Lyngdoh; (xi) WL Lyngdoh; (xii) Blishon K. Lyngdoh; (xiii) Skendfo Kharjahrim; and (xiv) L.Lyngskor.
6. The following documents were exhibited :
Ext. I a deed of sale dated 23.3.87 in Siej Lyngdoh between Ka Thrin Lyngdoh from Mawten and Ka Kwirshi Kharlyngdoh Nonglang @ Rs.16/- per square foot (This deed is not a registered deed and the area sold was 462 square feet only) This deed is in Khasi but it was translated to English by the lawyers of both the sides. (Exhibited by Shri DK Lyngdoh)
Ext. A : the notice from the Government regarding acquisition of land.
Ext. B: Agreement regarding the receipt of compensation as fixed by the Collector.
Ext. 2 : A certificate granted by D. Lyngodoh regarding the value of the first class paddy field.
Ext. 4 : A certificate of registration and
Ext. 5 : is the deed. These are for homestead land and situated in market area.
Ext. 6 : The Deed of Sale dated 22.3.87 (not registered).
Ext. 7 : Certificate issued by WL Lyngdoh, occupation - Myntri of Maharam Syiemship.
Ext. 3 : Sale Deed dated 12.8.88 (not registered).
7. We have heard Shri MM Lahifi, learned Advocate General for the appellant and Shri AM Mazumdar, learned Advocate assisted by Shri DK Das, learned Advocate for the respondents.
8. The first preliminary objection raised by Shri Mazumdar is regarding maintainability of one appeal against the separate decrees passed in these Misc. Cases as indicated above and in this connection he relies on the following 3 (three) decisions :
(i) AIR 1971 SC 2355 (Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai NB Jeejeebhoy) where he relies on paragraph 9 and 11 of the judgment. The Supreme Court pointed out as follows:
"9. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the stature the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdicti
