Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Smti. Effilina Marak & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 205 of 2016
Decided On : 20-04-2021
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 11, 4, 17, 5, 18, 31 – Land Acquisition – Delay – Condonation of Delay – It is case of the Petitioners that the Collector in exercise of power u/s 11 of the L.A Act. 1894 had made an award without taking into consideration the objections raised by Petitioners in their representation mentioned above – Petitioners were then called to collect award which they did between 22.12.2010 to 11.08.2011 after raising serious oral protests against manner in which the award was determined – Collector inspite of said protests did not allow them to write word “Under Protest” on revenue records at time of receiving compensation being 80 per cent of same received – Letter was submitted before Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar by some of Petitioners herein under subject ‘Complaint against unjustified and discriminatory land compensation’ whereby reference was made to letter – Collector vide letter dated 13.02.2012 asked all the writ Petitioners and others to collected remaining 20 per cent of compensation from office to which Petitioners received same with oral protests, which was not recorded on revenue records prompting them to file another reference application and a reminder to this being application and again another reminder which was sent to Collector with a request to refer their matter for reference u/s 18 of said L.A Act, 1894 to which Collector has declined to take any action on same – Petitioners then approached Court with a writ petition seeking appropriate relief on being denied of same by inaction of Collector – Court sitting in Division Bench has then disposed of said writ petition vide order whereby Petitioners were allowed to filed an application before Deputy Commissioner, within a period of one month and Deputy Commissioner may make a reference under Section 18 of Act to the Reference Court.
Finding of the court : In sub-Section 2 of Section 18 what is seen is that an application so made must be made within six weeks from date of accepting award from the Collector or on receipt of notice under Section 12, sub-Section (2), within six weeks or six months from date of the Collector’s award – Court being mindful of provision of L.A. Act and time limit prescribed therein for making any reference, has given Petitioners liberty to file an application for condonation of delay, if so desired and that Deputy Commissioner may consider same in accordance with law – There is no specific provision for condonation of delay in making an application under Section 18 of Act and as such, counsel for Petitioners have candidly submitted that knowing fully well that Deputy Commissioner has no power to condone any delay, such an application has not been filed – what can be deduced is that Court in said writ petition have decided on prayer of Petitioners interalia on said representation Petitioners are therefore precluded from raising same issue again in this instant petition – Issue under agitation is therefore impugned order vis-a-vis letter – Letter is therefore to be taken as letter seeking reference and this, placed in juxtaposition with award as rightly submitted by Mr. Khan, period for filing the same is indeed time barred and though a narrow window of opportunity was given to Petitioners to file an application for condonation of delay, same not being availed, impugned order is therefore proper and suffers from no legal infirmity – Court is of considered opinion that Petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference by Court and this petition is hereby rejected as devoid of merits.
Result : Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. What can be understood from this writ petition is that the Petitioners are said to be the absolute land owners of land situated at Mendipathar village, North Garo Hills (then East Garo Hills District). The details of the land owned by each of the 29 Petitioners herein is given at paragraph 3 of this writ petition.
2. At paragraph 7 of the writ petition, reference was made to the Notification No. RDA.21/08/134, dated Shillong the 24th November, 2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which is a notification made u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicating the requirement of the Government for construction of new B.G Railway Line from Dudhnoi to Mendipathar. In the same notification, the Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 17(4) of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have decided that in view of the urgency of the project, provisions of Section 5 (A) of the Act shall not apply to the land described above.
3. ‘Public Notice’ No. EGH/REV.235/2009/79, dated Williamnagar, the 30th November 2009 was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar whereby, the Government had authorized entry and survey of the land and to do all other Acts required or permitted by sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act.
4. It may be mentioned that the Petitioners citing reference to the fixation of land compensation by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura whereby rates were fixed for different category of land within its jurisdiction, had petitioned the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar for fixation of a higher rate of compensation by giving stating that since the rate determined by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura does not reflect the correct and existing market rate. A similar letter was written to the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar vide letter dated 16.01.2010 (Annexure-D).
5. Thereafter, vide Notification No. RDA.21/2008/147, dated Shillong the 8th February 2010, the Government of Meghalaya through the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Shillong has issued the declaration u/s 6 of the said Act of 1894, whereby the land of the writ Petitioners and others was acquired for public purpose for the said construction of the new B.G Railway Line from Dudhnoi to Mendipathar.
6. The Petitioners then filed another representation dated 06.03.2010 addressed to the Executive Secretary, Garo Hills District Council, Tura under the subject ‘Review of Land Compensation for railway affected areas of Mendipathar’. Copy of this representation was also sent to the Respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar herein.
7. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Collector in exercise of power u/s 11 of the L.A Act. 1894 had made an award dated 09.11.2010 without taking into consideration the objections raised by the Petitioners in their representation mentioned above. The Petitioners were then called to collect the award which they did between 22.12.2010 to 11.08.2011 after raising serious oral protests against the manner in which the award was determined. However, the Collector inspite of the said protests did not allow them to write the word “Under Protest” on the revenue records at the time of receiving the compensation being 80 per cent of the same received on 22.12.2012.
8. Another letter dated 24.12.2011 was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar by some of the Petitioners herein under the subject ‘Complaint against unjustified and discriminatory land compensation’ whereby reference was made to the letter dated 15.01.2009 and 15.07.2009.
9. The Collector vide letter dated 13.02.2012 asked all the writ Petitioners and others to collect the remaining 20 per cent of the compensation from the office on 24.02.2012 to which the Petitioners received the same with oral protests, which was not recorded on the revenue records pr
Condonation of delay - Non-reference of the Deputy Commissioner to Reference Court - Provision of L.A. Act and time limit prescribed therein for making any reference, has given Petitioners liberty to....
Knowledge of the award is crucial for invoking the statutory provisions for reference under the Land Acquisition Act, and failure to demonstrate lack of knowledge results in dismissal of the applicat....
Limitation under Section 18(b) of Land Acquisition Act runs from actual/constructive knowledge of award contents if no Section 12(2) notice; market value from pre-notification sales with escalation.
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins when the landowner has actual knowledge of the award's contents, not merely from the award's passing date.
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins from the date of knowledge of the award's contents, and the burden of proving notice issuance lies with the....
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
