IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
The Project Manager, BRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lalrosangi and Ors. – Respondents
RFA 16 of 2023, I.A.(Civil) 58 of 2023
Decided on : 16-05-2024
Admission - Damages to Land - Section 96 CPC, Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 58 - Himani Alloys Ltd vs. Tata Steel Ltd. - Admission must be categorical and unconditional - Court remits the case back to the trial court for further proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was sued for damages caused to the respondent's land during a road widening project. The trial court decreed the suit on admission based on the appellant's alleged admission of liability for the damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's admission was not unequivocal and remitted the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's admission of responsibility for the damages constituted an admission of liability for the assessed amount of damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an admission must be categorical and unconditional. It found that the appellant's admission did not amount to an unequivocal admission of liability for the assessed amount of damages.
Final Decision: The court remitted the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, setting aside the previous judgment and decree.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 CPC read with Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 01.11.2022 and the Decree dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, Mizoram in Civil Suit No.2 of 2022
3. The brief facts of the case is that the present respondent/plaintiff in the Civil Suit No.2 of 2022, being the legal and rightful owner of the land bearing LSC No.439 of 1988 located at Hrangchalkawn, Lunglei, had filed the suit against the present appellant/defendant No.1 for payment of compensation/damages caused to the land, fish pond, crops and fencing of the present respondent No.1 by the present appellant. The said land was situated besides NH-54 in which a project of widening and up-gradation of road was being carried out. The present appellant along with the proforma respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under-took the execution of the said project. During the execution of their work the present appellant dumped waste soils and mucks, thereby damaging the boundary fencing of the land, breaking one RCC built fish pond and clogging the pond with waste soils of the present respondent No.1. The present respondent No.1/plaintiff in the Civil Suit No.2 of 2022 claimed Rs.19,30,000/-(Rupees nineteen lakhs thirty thousand) for the damage property, by engaging Junior Civil Engineer, who made the estimate for construction of rectangular RCC underground water tank, garden fencing and excavation of mucks and waste on fish pond based on ‘SOR 2016 for NH & State roads in Mizoram’. The present respondent No.1 also made a supplementary claim of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) for damages of fruits, trees and crops embedded on the land.
4. The present appellant/defendant no.1 in the Civil Suit, filed their written statement, wherein it was admitted that damaged was caused to the land of the present respondent No.1 due to debris, soil deposited. The present appellant submitted that the Right of way (ROW) for dumping debris was adjacent to the land of the plaintiff near the boundary and was near one of the fish pond, which was divided by natural stream, however, during monsoons, the debris deposited to the ROW was swept away by rain and overflow stream, depositing the soil in the land of the plaintiff. Consequently damaged the land with debris, waste soils deposited in the land of the present respondent No.1, which had also filled one of the fish pond near the boundary, destroying angle poles, barbed wires, etc.
The present appellant/defendant was fully aware and ready to renovate the damaged fish pond, fencing and other necessary water line to the satisfaction of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, a Joint spot verification was also done on 26.04.2022 with a hope to come to some amicable settlement.
5. The appellant in their written statement had also stated that the amount of Rs.19,30,000/-claimed by the instant respondent No.1 in the Civil Suit No.2/2022 was too high and out of question, but both the parties would agree to settle the matter amicably and the matter was also referred to Lok Adalat, however, the parties could not come to an amicable settlement.
6. Thereafter the learned trial court vide order dated 26.10.2022 directed the EA to Superintending Engineer, PWD, Lunglei Circle to make an assessment report. As directed, the assessment report was filed and both the parties appeared before the learned trial court on 01.11.2022, which is the date fixed for submission of assessment report and hearing thereof. The learned trial court then passed the impugned Judgment & order dated 01.11.2022 and the Decree dated 01.11.2022 as follows
Dudh Nath Pandey -Vs-Suresh Chandra Bhattasali reported in (1986) 3 SCC 360
Himani Alloys Limited -Vs-Tata Steel Limited reported in (2011) 15 SCC 273
Jeevan diesels and Electricals -Vs-Jasbir Singhchadha (HUF) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 601
AI
An admission must be categorical and unconditional to constitute a basis for a judgment on admission.
The court upheld the compensation for property damage caused by excavation, emphasizing the need for accurate valuation and just compensation for losses incurred.
Appellant cannot take the plea that the Trial Court had erred in not examining the commissioner when no such prayer for examination of the commission was made in the trial court by the neither of the....
The court emphasized the duty of defendants to prevent damage to adjacent properties and highlighted the importance of uncontroverted expert valuation in assessing damages.
The Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reassess land for compensation claims.
Compulsory land acquisition compensation must prioritize actual market value determined through comparable transactions, rejecting average calculations unless strongly justified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.