Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Phuntso Memba, S/o. Lt. Tsering Pumsho and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Through The Cabinet Secretary To The Govt. Of India and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.97 of 2021
Decided On : 14-05-2024
LARR Act, 2013 - Land Acquisition - Sections 30(3), 80, 93
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought interest on land compensation from the date of possession or notification, and rent charges/damages from the date of actual possession in 1959. The land was acquired for the Indian Army, and the acquisition proceedings were completed under the LARR Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of the first notification in 2009, as they had only been provided interest for one year. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine and consider the payment of rent/damages to the petitioners from the period of possession in 1986 till the date of the 2009 notification, and interest from the first notification in 2009 till the award on the additional compensation.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the petitioners to interest, rent charges/damages, and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of the first notification in 2009, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine the payment of rent/damages and interest as per the LARR Act, 2013.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine and consider the payment of rent/damages and interest to the petitioners within three months.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court recognized that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the land compensation from the date of the first notification issued in 2009, as they had only been granted interest for one year initially (!) (!) .
The petitioners are also entitled to rent charges or damages for the period of actual possession, which started in 1986, and this entitlement is supported by statutory provisions under the relevant land acquisition laws (!) (!) (!) .
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine and consider the payment of rent/damages and interest from the period of possession in 1986 until the date of the 2009 notification, and further interest from 2009 until the award of additional compensation (!) (!) (!) .
The acquisition proceedings for the land in question were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but later completed under the LARR Act, 2013, invoking the urgency clause, which affected the application of certain statutory benefits such as interest calculations (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that while the petitioners are not entitled to interest under certain provisions due to the invocation of the urgency clause, they are entitled to statutory benefits like interest from the date of the first notification, considering their possession since 1986 and the initial notification in 2009 (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that claims for damages under Section 93 of the LARR Act, 2013, are not applicable in this case because the possession was already taken before the acquisition proceedings, but rent or damages for use and occupation could be considered for the period of possession (!) (!) .
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the Deputy Commissioner to complete the exercise of examining and quantifying the rent/damages and interest within three months, ensuring the petitioners receive statutory benefits for the period of possession and the period from the first notification in 2009 (!) .
The court rejected the petitioners' claim for interest and damages beyond what was directed, based on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable statutory provisions (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting a specific document based on these points?
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 11, 14, 15 & 16. None appears for respondent Nos. 12 & 13.
2. By instituting this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide 12% interest of the land compensation w.e.f. from the date of possession or notification on the market value of land and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay hire/rent charges/ damages from the date of the actual possession i.e. w.e.f. 1959, in accordance with sections 30 (3), 80 and 93 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as LARR Act, 2013) Alternatively, the petitioners have prayed for declaration of the acquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondent authorities by issuing preliminary notification dated 03.06.2018, as illegal, on the ground of violation of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. The case of 33 petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is that they are permanent residents of Rishing, Kopu, Lali and Bona villages under Upper Siang District and are the owners of land measuring 108.08 Acres at Tuting area of Upper Siang District. It is projected that initially the Indian Army had taken shelter in small plot of land in the year 1959 to 1962 and thereafter, left the place for long period and again came back in the year 1986 and occupied the present land. Since then, the said land is under the possession of Indian Army. As a result, the petitioner had suffered for non- payment of land compensation for almost four decades.
4. In the year 2009 vide Memo No. LM-50/2008, the authority issued a notification for acquisition of land. Thereafter, on 13.02.2010, a final notification was issued. However, the said acquisition proceedings got lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. In the year 2015, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP (C) No. 319 (AP) 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2015 with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to look into the matter immediately with serious concern and to settle the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law by taking into consideration the letter/communication dated 20.11.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District, within a period of 3 months.
5. The petitioners, after completion of 3 (three) months, when no action was taken even after direction of this court, again approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP (C) 203 (AP) 2016, wherein, this Court had directed the Defence Estate Officer, Jorhat, Assam to issue appropriate communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District for initiating land acquisition proceedings within a period of 15 days. The respondent authorities had failed to comply with the direction of this Court. A Contempt Petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 26 (AP) 2017 was filed and thereafter, the said contempt petition was disposed of with a further direction to complete acquisition process within three months. Again, the respondent authorities had failed to comply with the above order resulting in filing of another Contempt Petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 39 (AP) 2018. While Cont. Case (C) No. 39 (AP) 2018 was pending before this Court, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had issued Notification vide Memo No. LM-124/ACQ/2018, dated 03.06.2018 and land acquisition award was made vide order No. YKLM-31/2019, 26.11.2019 by invoking urgency clause under section 40 (1) of LARR Act, 2013 and payment was made to the petitioners but it was found that the petitioners were paid only to the value of said land measuring around 108.
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
