Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Prasanna Kumar Bharatia, S/o Late Bijnath Bharatia and Ors. – Respondents
LA. App. 7 of 2007
Decided On : 14-06-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, Ms. M. Hore, Mr. S. S. Roy, Mr. R. Hazarika
For the Respondent: Mr. R. De, Mr. G. Sarma, Ms. N. Mitra, Mr. M.R. Adhikary, Mr. M. K. Nath, GA, Ms. D. Devi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine fair compensation for acquired land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54, Section 96, Order XLI Rule I of the CPC - Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2), Section 23 thirdly, Section 23 fourthly, Section 28, Section 34 - The court discussed the issues related to fair market value, compensation for house and zirats, additional compensation, damage compensation, and interest under various sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court found in favor of the respondents No. 1 to 5 on all issues and allowed the reference case, awarding enhanced compensation, additional compensation, damage compensation, and interest.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of land for setting up a Telephone Exchange. The possession of the acquired land was taken over, and a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued. The respondents No. 1 to 5 raised objections to the compensation awarded, leading to a reference case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the respondents No. 1 to 5 on all issues, awarding enhanced compensation, additional compensation, damage compensation, and interest.
Issues: The issues included fair market value, compensation for house and zirats, additional compensation, damage compensation, and interest under various sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to determine fair compensation for the acquired land.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the learned District Judge for a fresh trial.
Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Hore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikary, learned Government Advocate along with Mr. M. K. Nath, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 6 and 7.
2. This is a Land Acquisition (L.A.) Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 and Order XLI Rule I of the CPC. The appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (L.A.) Case No. 153/2005.
3. The brief facts of the case is that by virtue of L.A. Case No. DRA/22/91 that an area of land measuring 02 Bigha-03 Katha-05 Lecha, covered by Dag No. 195, 196 and Part of 289 of Periodic Patta No. 60 and 67 of Naharkatia Town was acquired for public purposes for setting up of a Telephone Exchange at Naharkatia. The Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, by his letter requested the Telecom Department through the Telecom District Manager, Dibrugarh to deposit the estimate of Rs.21,16,887/- only at the disposal of the Collector, Dibrugarh. Thereafter, the necessary papers were sent to the Revenue (L.R.) Department, Government of Assam. Accordingly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued and published in the official gazette on 26.02.1993. However, as the money was not deposited by the appellant, the declaration under Section 6 could not be published. However, on 20.04.1993, the possession of the acquired land was taken over by the Collector from the respondent No. 1 had and the said acquired land was handed over to the appellant on the same date. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing C.R. No. 2986/94 for expeditious release of the land acquisition compensation amount. This Court by order dated 20.06.1997, arrived at a finding that in view of the finding that notice under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was not issued within one year from the date of declaration issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, there was no land acquisition proceeding in the eye of law and therefore, issuance of direction to the respondents therein to pay compensation fixed by the Collector did not arise and therefore, this said writ petition was dismissed. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order, which was registered as W.A. No. 420/1997. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by referring to the various communications had issued a direction to the effect that the Collector, Dibrugarh and the appellant herein should initiate the process under the provisions of the L.A. Act and to expedite the acquisition process after receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.
4. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 420/1997, the land acquisition proposal was prepared afresh as per request of the appellant vide Letter No. BD-2032/1999-2000/13 dated 17.01.2002. A fresh notice under Section 4 was issued and published in the official gazette on 25.04.2001. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 05.03.2002, and published in the Official Gazette of 07.03.2002. It was projected that the acquired land had already been delivered to the appellant on 20.04.1993. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the respondents No. 1 and 5 raised their objection and accordingly, a reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh on 16.06.2005 and on receipt of the said reference, the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh registered the same as Misc. (L.A.) Case No. 153/2005. Notice was issued on the appellant but as they did not appear, the said case proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. However, the Government Pleader representing the Collector, had appeared i
