IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
The National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gopa Devi Chakma W/o Doya Ranjan (L) – Respondent
WA No. 5 of 2023
Decided On : 28-10-2024
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 18, 23(1A), 23(2) - Writ Appeal against the judgment directing calculation of interest on compensation for land acquisition - The learned Single Judge directed the District Collector to calculate interest on the entire compensation amount, including solatium and interest, within a specified timeframe. (Paras 2, 10, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 226 - The court emphasized that the learned Single Judge acted within jurisdiction, as there was no challenge to the award and the petitioners had been deprived of their property rights without compensation. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The Government of Mizoram acquired land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with two awards issued in 2015. The petitioners sought directions for payment of compensation, which had not been fully disbursed. (Paras 4, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's order for calculating and disbursing the due compensation, emphasizing the obligation of the state to pay compensation for acquired land. (Paras 19, 21)
Issues: The main issues included whether the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction and the validity of the compensation calculation process. (Paras 11, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned Single Judge's directions were justified as there was no challenge to the award, and the petitioners were entitled to compensation as per law. (Paras 15, 19)
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Subedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents. I have also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, the learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. This intra-Court Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 71/2018 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the District Collector Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai to make appropriate calculation on the interest payable to the Petitioners which should be for the entire amount of compensation i.e. including the solatium and interest. The learned Single Judge further directed that the said calculation should be done within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order. Further to that, the learned Single Judge directed that upon such calculation being made, the Collector shall forward the same to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition who shall make necessary arrangements of the funds required as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the requisition for funds from the Collector. It was further directed that the Respondents in the writ petition shall co-ordinate and ensure that the petitioners get their due compensation without delay.
3. To adjudicate the challenge to the impugned judgment and order, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition as well as the present Writ Appeal.
4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as was arrayed in the Writ Petition. The Government of Mizoram through its Principal Secretary, Land Revenue and Settlement Department had published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) on 26.10.2012 for construction of Indo-Bangla Border Fencing (IBBF) and approach road to BOPs within Lawngtlai District. Subsequent thereto, a declaration was made in terms with Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 08.04.2013 that the land specified in the Schedule which included the land of the Petitioners, were required for public purpose. The Deputy Commissioner, Lawngtlai District was also appointed to perform the functions of a Collector and directed to take order for acquisition of the said land. Thereafter, the necessary formalities in terms with the provisions of the Act of 1894 were carried out and two awards were prepared. The first award pertained to Award No. 1‘A’ of 2015 amounting to Rs.16,24,94,217/-and the second award being Award No. 1‘B’ of 2015 amounting to Rs.8,65,75,526/-. Both these awards were approved by the Government of Mizoram vide Memo No. K.12011/53/13-REV/Pt dated 18.09.2015. The contents of the approval of Award No. 1‘A’ of 2015 and Award No. 1‘B’ of 2015 dated 18.09.2015 are reproduced herein under:
GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM
LAND REVENUE & SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT
Secretariat Annex-1, 2ndFloor, Room No. 205
Treasury Square, Aizawl – 796001
Aizawl, the 18th Sept. 2015
To
The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector,
Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai.
Mizoram.
Subject: Approval of Award No. 1‘A’ of 2015 and Award No. 1‘B’ of 2015
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to convey herewith approval of Draft Award No. 1‘A’ of 2015 amounting to Rs.16,24,94,217/-(Rupees sixteen crore twenty four lakh ninety four thousand two hundred seventeen) only and Draft Award No. 1‘B’of 2015 amounting to Rs.8,65,75,526/-(Rupees eight crore sixty five lakh seventy five thousand five hundred twenty six) only respectively for acquisition of land for construction of IBB Fencing and approach road within Lawngtlai District.
Payment should be made by crossed cheque and not in cash.
Compensation should be disbursed subject to the co
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others
National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Others
Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Others
The court affirmed the obligation to pay compensation for land acquisition, emphasizing the learned Single Judge's jurisdiction to direct payment when no challenge to the award existed.
The court affirmed the obligation of the state to pay compensation for land acquisition as mandated by law, emphasizing the validity of the award and the constitutional right to property.
The court affirmed that awards under the Land Acquisition Act, once finalized, are binding, and the State must pay compensation despite challenges regarding land classification.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
The court ruled that the State Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for determining compensation; only higher courts possess that authority under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in land acquisition invalidates the award, highlighting the necessity of proper notifications and consideration of market value as per....
Sections 12 read as award of Collector when to be final.
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.
Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06.
Payment of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act is a statutory right, and a writ petition can be maintained to enforce this right even if compensation has been accepted.
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.