Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
A.K.GOSWAMI, J.
Sri Ananta Ram Nath Son of Late Nabin Chandra Nath - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue & D.M. (L.R.), Dispur, Guwahati-781006, Assam - Respondent
WP(C) 5730/2014 & WP(C) 6397/2014
Decided On : 15-03-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. A. Chamua, Mr. C. P. Sarma, Advocates,
For the Respondent:Mr. Y. Doloi, Addl. Advocate General, Assam, Mr. T. C. Chutia, Government Advocate, Mr. D. Nath, Government Advocate, Mr. H. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. A. Sarma, Advocate.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 , 6(1) and 17(4) - Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition of Land - Affidavit - Additional affidavit was filed by petitioners - In said additional affidavit, it is pleaded that by letter dated issued by Government, Deputy Commissioner was required to furnish fresh Draft Notification under Section 4 and Draft Declaration under Section 6 in LA Case No. 2/12 if requiring department was still interested in acquisition of proposed land as the notification in LA Case No. 2/12, issued under Section 4 of LA Act, had lapsed - It is pleaded that till about 296 persons had not received or accepted award and therefore an un-dated notice was published by respondent No. 3 to accept award/compensation and requesting them to submit requisite documents for purpose - Respondent No. 3 made payment to petitioners in their respective bank accounts in month of September but majority of the persons whose land had been acquired had not been paid – Held, Collector is required to send his award to Government for approval - It is further observed that an award shall not be made by Collector without the previous approval of appropriate Government or of such officer as appropriate Government may authorize and, therefore before an award can be said to have been made, it is mandatory that it must be approved by the Government or officer authorized in this behalf - Deputy Secretary had put up notes on in all the three cases indicating that awards had been submitted and same may be approved - Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM (LR) Department approved same in all three cases and thereafter, letters dated had been issued forwarding approved copy of awards in respect of three LA Cases - Therefore, only conclusion that can be reached is that the awards in question having been approved by the Government - State respondents are directed to determine compensation on basis of provisions of Act and to pay such compensation expeditiously by adjusting the amounts already paid - Writ petitions are allowed.
The relevant facts, shortly, as projected by the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, namely, WP(C) 5730/2014 and WP(C) 6397/2014, are that the Government of India and the Government of Assam had collaborated with six private/public companies for the purpose of establishment of an institute, namely, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “Institute”). While the share of Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Government of India is 57.5%, that of Government of Assam is 35%. The other entities comprised the balance of 7.5% shares.
2. For the purpose of setting up of the Institute, a notification dated 25.05.2012 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the LA Act”), issued by the Government of Assam in LA Case No. 2/12, was published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) on 13.07.2012, whereby the Government of Assam proposed to acquire about 222 Bigha 0 Katha 5 Lecha of land in village Sontola under Chayani Mouza of Palasbari Revenue Circle in the District of Kamrup (Rural). Apart from LA Case No. 2/12, LA Case No. 1/12, LA Case No. 11/12 and LA Case No. 12/12 were also started and, in the notification dated 25.05.2012 LA Case No. 11/12 and LA Case No. 12/12 were included for acquisition of land. In LA Case No. 11/12, the total area of land to be acquired was 27 Bigha 3 Katha 17 Lecha and, in LA Case No. 12/12, the total area of land was 46 Bigha 0 Katha 19 Lecha, totaling 73 Bigha 4 Katha 8 Lecha. Thus, the total area of land sought to be acquired was 296 Bigha 1 Lecha. The petitioners in these writ petitions are some of the land owners of part of the land sought to be acquired. The total land of the petitioners in WP(C) 5730/2014 is 45 Bigha 3 Katha 8 Lecha and that of the petitioners in WP(C) 6397/2014 is 39 Bigha 1 Katha 11 Lecha.
3. In WP(C) 6397/2014, land is acquired in respect of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 and 24 under LA Case No. 1/12 and, that of the petitioner Nos. 11 to 23 and 25 to 39 under LA Case No. 2/2012. Though not very clearly stated in the writ petition, it appears that the land of the writ petitioners in WP(C) 5730/2014 is covered under LA Case No. 2/12.
4. In both the writ petitions, additional affidavit was filed by the petitioners on 07.04.2015. In the said additional affidavit, it is pleaded that by letter dated 12.11.2013, issued by the Government of Assam, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, was required to furnish fresh Draft Notification under Section 4 and Draft Declaration under Section 6 in LA Case No. 2/12 if the requiring department was still interested in acquisition of the proposed land as the notification in LA Case No. 2/12, issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, had lapsed. Accordingly, fresh notification under Section 4 was issued on 04.12.2013. It is further pleaded that in respect of LA Case Nos. 1/12, 11/12 and 12/12 also, fresh notifications under Section 4 of the LA Act were issued in the month of December, 2013.
5. It is pleaded that till 31.08.2014, about 296 persons had not received or accepted award and, therefore, an un-dated notice was published by the respondent No. 3 to accept the award/compensation and requesting them to submit the requisite documents for the purpose. Respondent No. 3 made payment to the petitioners in their respective bank accounts in the month of September, 2014, but majority of the persons, whose land had been acquired, had not been paid.
6. At this stage, it must be put on record that the foundation of both the writ petitions rests on an erroneous premise, as reflected in the pleadings, that the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “2013 Act”) came into effect on 27.09.2013. The basic grounds why the land acquisition proceedings in question are liable to be quashed and/set aside are set out in identical words in paragraph 15 of WP(C) 5730/2014 and paragraph
