Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 1424
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
North East Frontier Railway, N.F. Railway, Tarapur, Silchar, Assam – Petitioner
Versus
Rothanga and Ors. – Respondents
RFA No.20 Of 2022, I.A.(Civil) No.83 Of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ali Hussain.
For the Respondents: Mrs. H Lalmalsawmi, (Addl. AG/GA Mizoram).
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act requires sufficient reasons and consideration of relevant factors, including the nature and location of the acquired land.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation - Sections 18, 23, 28, 34 - The court discussed the enhancement of compensation rate for acquired lands from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. The legal provisions under Sections 18, 23, 28, and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were referenced and interpreted to determine the entitlement of the respondents to compensation. The court emphasized the need for sufficient reasons to justify the enhancement of compensation and the relevance of considering the nature and location of the acquired land in determining market value.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents' lands were acquired for the construction of a railway line, and they sought enhancement of compensation from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. through a review petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given for the enhancement of compensation were not substantiated by evidence and lacked sufficient justification. It also noted the failure to consider relevant factors such as the location and nature of the acquired land.
Issues: The key issues involved the justification for enhancing the compensation rate and the relevance of comparing market values of lands in different districts for the same railway line construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enhancement of compensation must be supported by sufficient reasons and consideration of relevant factors, as mandated by the Land Acquisition Act. It emphasized the need for evidence and justification in determining market value.
Final Decision: The Judgment and Order enhancing the compensation rate was set aside and quashed, leading to the allowance and disposal of RFA No. 20 of 2022.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Dy. Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellant along with Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This court in its order dated 23.01.2023, had made the following observation and order:-
“This Regular First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Order dated 03.07.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 17/2019, by which the rate of compensation payable to the respondents for acquisition of their lands has been enhanced from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.ft.
The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to Award No. 1/2012 (Part ‘C’, Hortoki) the respondents’ lands were acquired for construction of a railway line from Bairabi to Sairang. The respondents were given compensation for their crops, fish ponds, buildings etc. which were within their acquired lands. However, no market value was given for the acquired lands.
Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, praying for payment of compensation for the value of their lands. The reference petition was thereafter sent to the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl, wherein it was registered as LA No. 30/2014.
LA No. 30/2014 was disposed of by the Reference Court vide Judgment & Award dated 05.02.2015, by holding that the respondents were entitled to be paid the value of their lands in terms of the LA Act, 1894 and the Reference Court accordingly fixed the compensation rate at Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. 4 (four) years later, the respondents filed Review Petition No. 17/2019 in the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl, arising out of LA Case No. 30/2014, praying for enhancement of the compensation rate awarded for the value of their lands,on the ground that the respondents’ counsel in the learned Reference Court had wrongly claimed only Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. for the market value of their lands, while the respondents had actually informed the counsel to claim not less than Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. for the value of their lands.
Review Petition No. 17/2019 was disposed of by the Review Court vide Judgment & Order dated 03.07.2020, by holding that the respondents were entitled compensation @ Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. for the market value of their lands, along with solatium and interest under Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894. The Review Court also held that the respondents were entitled to interest under Sections 28 & 34 of the LA Act, 1894.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment & Order dated 03.07.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 17/2019, the appellants have filed the present Regular First Appeal.
Mr. R.K. Chowdhury, the learned Deputy SGI submits that the learned Reference Court, in its Judgment & Award dated 05.02.2015, had clearly stated the fact that the respondents were claiming only Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. as compensation for the market value of their lands, as persons whose lands were covered by Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) had been given the said rate in terms of Award No. 1/2012 (Part ‘C’, Hortoki). He submits that as the respondents’ lands were covered by Periodic Pattas/Village Council Passes, there was no infirmity with the awarding of compensation at the same rate as given to LSC holders. However, vide the impugned judgment and order passed in Review Petition No. 17/2019, the Review Court has without any basis, enhanced the market value of the land of the respondents from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. He also submits that as the respondents were satisfied with the award of Rs. 25/- per sq.ft. passed by the learned Reference Court, there was no justification for the Review Court to enhance the said compensation rate. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal is not maintainable, as the order allowing the review petition should have been challenged under Order 43 Rule 1(w) and not under Section 96/Order 41 of the CPC. He also submits that the review petition was maintainable as a Review Court can al
