Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.
Veijalhing & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
M.C.(L.A. Appeal) No. 3 of 2021 [Ref:- L.A. Appeal No. 2 of 2018] and in the Matter of LA Appeal No. 2 of 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2022
Land Acquisition - Impleadment - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 - Section 11(1), 15(2), 21, 64 - The court dismissed the application for impleadment as the applicant did not make any claim or objection before the Collector during the land acquisition proceedings and the delay in approaching the Court was not explained. The court held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a self-contained code and the applicant's claim for compensation cannot be considered as it was not raised before the Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought impleadment in a land acquisition appeal, claiming entitlement to compensation for land acquired by the Assam Rifles. The respondent No. 3 had withdrawn the compensation amount without authority and did not implead the applicant in the land acquisition case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant did not make any claim or objection before the Collector during the land acquisition proceedings and the delay in approaching the Court was not explained. The court dismissed the application for impleadment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be allowed to be impleaded as a private respondent/intervener in the connected land acquisition appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a self-contained code and the applicant's claim for compensation cannot be considered as it was not raised before the Collector. The court also emphasized the importance of timely assertion of rights and the impact of delay and laches on the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for impleadment, without any costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. M. Tapan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5.
The present application had been filed with a prayer for allowing the applicant to be impleaded as private respondent No. 5/intervener in the connected L.A. Appeal No. 2 of 2018.
2. The case of the applicant is that the Chief of Songpi Village namely Shri Thienkholet Haokip gifted some portion of Songpi Village reserved unsurvey hill land measuring an area of about 120 hectares to the applicant, the present respondent No. 3 and another person in the year 1992 vide gift deed bearing Registered No. G/Deed 85/92 dated 17.07.1992. Thereafter, the portion of the Songpi Village reserved unservey hill land measuring about 120 hectares which was gifted to the applicant, the said respondent No. 3 and another person were partitioned and an area of about 103 acres out of the said 120 hectares of the said land was partitioned as absolute share of the said respondent No. 3 and the remaining area of the said land was partitioned as the share of the present applicant and another person.
3. It is the case of the present applicant that the land acquired by the Assam Rifles falls within the share portion of the applicant, however, the applicant recently came to know that the respondent No. 3 had withdrawn the compensation amount without any authority and had filed the connected Original (Land Acquisition) Case No. 1 of 2018 before the learned District Judge, Churachandpur and that the respondent No. 3, while filing the above preferred case, did not implead the applicant as one of the parties in the said case even though the present applicant is very much a necessary party.
4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the respondent No. 3 did not dispute that the applicant is the rightful owner of the land acquired by the Assam Rifles, however, the respondent No. 3 did not implead the present applicant as one of the parties while filing the aforesaid Original (Land Acquisition) Case No. 1 of 2018 before the learned District Judge, Churachandpur. The learned senior counsel submitted that if the present Land Acquisition Appeal No. 2 of 2018 is decided without giving an opportunity of being heard to the present applicant, the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that the applicant is very much interested to assist the Hon'ble Court during the proceedings of the connected appeal so as to enable her to protect her right and interest and accordingly, the learned senior counsel made a prayer for allowing the impleadment of the present applicant as private respondent No. 5/intervener in the connected appeal.
5. Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that on 10.05.2017, the Government of Manipur issued a notification under Section 11 (1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for short) for acquiring one hundred acres of land urgently for public purpose and that except for the respondent No. 3, no one including the present applicant submitted any claim to the authorities in connection with the proposed land acquisition. Subsequently, after taking into consideration the claim of the respondent No. 3, the Collector calculated the market value of the acquired land under Section 15 (2) of the said Act by issuing notification dated 21.08.2017. The learned counsel further submitted that after calculating the market value of the acquired land, the Collector issued a notice dated 11.05.2018 under Section 21 of the said Act inviting any interested person to claim their compensation and raised any o
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a self-contained code, and the timely assertion of rights is crucial in exercising discretionary jurisdiction.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The State cannot hide behind delay and laches to evade its responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
Third parties not named in land acquisition proceedings cannot implead themselves in reference proceedings and must seek a reference from the Deputy Commissioner.
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
