SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Sikk) 19

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Janga Bahadur Chettri - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 65 of 2017
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. A. Moulik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Prasad, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Government Advocate and Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government Advocate., for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 4; Mr. Jorgay Namka, Advocate., for the Respondent No.3

Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where prior proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not culminated in an Award.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), Section 11; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 23, Section 64 - Claim for compensation arising from land acquisition - Petitioner's property acquired with compensation determination falling under LARR Act, 2013 after L.A. Act, 1894 lapsed - Petitioner sought higher compensation of Rs.10,82,01,083/- and interest at 12% per annum. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Compensation assessment is governed by the LARR Act, 2013, despite prior notifications under L.A. Act, 1894 - Respondent No.3 is directed to pay computed compensation as per Annexure P11, deducting earlier paid amount. (Paras 12, 13)

(C) Court held that invoking Section 64 of LARR Act, 2013 by Respondent No.3 was misplaced as the Petitioner had not accepted the Award nor argued compensation measurement objections. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner owned land in East Sikkim, under acquisition procedures dating back to 2011, seeking higher compensation post enactment of LARR Act, 2013. Respondents claimed compensation under existing assessments, which the Petitioner disputes citing entitlements under LARR.

Findings of Court:
Respondent No.3 directed to pay compensation as assessed in Annexure P11, excluding the already received amount.

Issues: Whether an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was made, and if compensation under the LARR Act, 2013 was justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessment of compensation should adhere to LARR Act despite prior proceedings under L.A. Act when no final Award was recorded, stressing that the burden to contest lies on the party disputing compensation.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of, compensation payable.

Table of Content
1. compensation claims and acquisition process (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions of the parties regarding compensation (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis on award computation (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. decision and order on compensation payment (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The prayers that are being pressed inter alia in the instant Writ Petition are as follows;

(i) a Writ or Order or direction or declaration directing the Respondent No.3 (National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Limited) to make payment of compensation amounting to Rs.10,82,01,083/- (Rupees ten crores, eighty two lakhs, one thousand and eighty three) only; and

(ii) a Writ or Order or direction or declaration directing the Respondent No.3 to make payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the total compensation amount until final payment of the entire sum of money.

(ii) The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by non-payment of compensation for acquisition of his property at Singbel Block, Makha, East Sikkim, the Award of which was calculated at Rs.8,18,39,019/- (Rupees eight crores, eighteen lakhs, thirty nine thousand and nineteen) only, and upon inclusion of 4% establishment charge and 40 times capitalized value of land rent, computed to a total of Rs.11,56,49,615/- (Rupees eleven crores, fifty six lakhs, forty nine thousand, six hundred and fifteen) only.

(iii) The Petitioner's case in a nutshell, is that, he is the owner of landed property bearing Plot Nos.647, 649 and 651, measuring an area of 2.0590 hectares, situated at Singbel Block, East Sikkim, allegedly his only landed property. Four houses are located on the same land. In 2011, acquisition proceedings commenced for the said landed property along with the existing four houses and Notification under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter, 'L. A. Act, 1894'), was published in the Government Gazette, being Notification No.84/902/ LR&DMD(S), dated 19-10-2011. A declaration under Section 6 of the L. A. Act, 1894, followed which was published in the Government Gazette on 05-03-2013 and Government approval under Section 7 of the L. A. Act, 1894, obtained on 28-05-2013. Notice under Section 9 of the L. A. Act, 1894, was issued seeking objections, if any, from interested persons. That, no Award under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, 1894, was passed due to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, 'LARR Act, 2013') which came to be enforced from 01-01-2014, hence, the proceedings under the L.A. Act, 1894, lapsed. In the meanwhile, on 25-06-2014, the Respondents assessed compensation for acquisition of the said property at Rs.73,42,232/- (Rupees seventy three lakhs, forty two thousand, two hundred and thirty two) only, and paid 80% thereof to the Petitioner amounting to Rs.58,73,786/- (Rupees fifty eight lakhs, seventy three thousand, seven hundred and eighty six) only, while retaining the remaining 20% compensation with them. On learning of the enforcement of the LARR Act, 2013, in Sikkim in 2014, the Petitioner applied to the State-Respondents for higher compensation for his land and for rehabilitation, but to no avail. He thus made a representation dated 06-01-2016 to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India requesting for higher compensation and consequential benefits. The said Office forwarded the letter to the Respondent No.1 for appropriate action. The Respondent No.2 then passed the Award under Section 23 of the LARR Act, 2013, for acquisition of the Petitioner's land as detailed above. That, the Petitioner has received a sum of Rs.58,73,786/- (Rupees fifty eight lakhs, seventy three thousand, seven hundred and eighty six) only, but he is yet to receive the remaining amount of Rs.10,82,01,083/- (Rupees ten crores, eighty two lakhs, one thousand and eighty three) only, with interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, the prayers in the Petition.

2. In the Counter-Affidavit of the Res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top