Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Shri Rinthanga, S/o Pasena, R/o Hortoki, Kolasib District, Mizoram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 161 of 2016
Decided On : 21-10-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Lalchhanliana, Mr. K. Lalchhanhima, Mr. Lalramthlenga and Ms. Lallawmkimi, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, Addl. Adv. General, Mr. Ali Hussain, Advocate
Headnote:
L.A Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Writ petition has been filed against the Order issued by the respondent, rejecting the petitioners application under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894, on the ground that the District Collector does not have the jurisdiction to re-determine the land value – Petitioners case in brief is that the petitioners lands, which is located within the Hortoki Village Council area was acquired for construction of a new Railway Line from Bairabi to Sairang – Draft Award (Part-C, Hortoki) was issued by the District Collector, Kolasib, wherein compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the value of damaged crops was made at Serial of the Award. No compensation was paid for the value of the land – Held, Division Bench of this Court in WP(C),"Peoples Right to Information and Development Implementation Society of Mizoram (PRISM) v. State of Mizoram and Another" has held that the Village Council has the power to allot sites within its jurisdiction only for residential and other non-agriculture purposes – question of whether the petitioners Village Council pass were issued for residential or agriculture purposes need not be gone into, as the petitioners application under Section 28A is hit by limitation and as he cannot take advantage of the Judgment and Award passed in L.A Case, as he had already made a challenge to the Draft Award – Writ petition is dismissed.
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the Order dated 6.9.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3 (District Collector), rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894, on the ground that the District Collector does not have the jurisdiction to re-determine the land value.
3. The petitioners' case in brief is that the petitioner's lands, which is located within the Hortoki Village Council area was acquired for construction of a new Railway Line from Bairabi to Sairang. Draft Award No. 1/2012 (Part-C, Hortoki) dated 13.9.2012 was issued by the District Collector, Kolasib, wherein compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the value of damaged crops was made at Serial No. 258 of the Award. No compensation was paid for the value of the land.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had initially filed WP(C) No. 18/2016 praying that the petitioner should be given interest and solatium under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. WA No. 18/2016 was disposed of vide Order dated 26.2.2016, wherein the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum under the L.A Act, 1894 for redressal of his grievance with regard to non-payment of solatium and interest under Section 23 of the L.A Act. The petitioner thereafter approached the Reference Court by filing CMA No. 90/2016 arising out of L.A Case No. 4/2013 (disposed). The Reference Court thereafter disposed of CMA No. 90/2016 directing the District Collector, Kolasib to release the solatium and interest of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner thereafter received solatium and interest.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that persons who are similarly situated as the petitioner and who were also given compensation for damaged crops only in Draft Award No. 1/2012 (Part-C, Hortoki) had filed a reference petition, i.e. L.A Case No. 30/2014, claiming compensation for their lands, as the Award did not contain the market value of their lands. The petitioner was not a party in the reference case, i.e. L.A Case No. 30/2014.
6. The Reference Court disposed of L.A Case No. 30/2014 vide Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 directing the North East Frontier Railway to pay compensation for the market value of the lands of the land holders.
7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner came to know of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014 only on 26.2.2016, i.e., one year later.
8. The petitioner thereafter applied for a certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014 on 26.2.2016 and the same was furnished to the petitioner on 10.3.2016.
9. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 25.4.2016 under Section 28A to the Deputy Commissioner, claiming compensation for the market value of his land, on the basis of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014.
10. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's application for payment of compensation for land value under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894 was rejected vide Order dated 6.9.2016 by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 did not have the jurisdiction to re-determine the land value.
11. The petitioner's counsel submits that this Court in a similar case, i.e. WP(C) No. 165/2015 and WP(C) No. 82/2016 has directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the applications of the petitioners under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894.
12. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, Addl. Advocate General submits that as the petitioner has submitted an application under Section 28A after more than one year from the date of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in LA Case No.
