DIVISIONAL MANAGER (AREA MANAGER ) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA vs SHRI ALTAF HUSSAIN @ ALTAFUR RAHMAN AND 5 ORS

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 41

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
DIVISIONAL MANAGER (AREA MANAGER ) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SHRI ALTAF HUSSAIN @ ALTAFUR RAHMAN AND 5 ORS – Respondent
RSA / 87 / 2024

Important Points

A suit is not maintainable if barred under Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Subject

Property Law - Land Acquisition

Act Referred

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : S.63

Headnote

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 63 - Appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the decree allowing a suit that is barred under the Act - The trial court's appreciation of the acquisition proceeding was not discussed by the First Appellate Court, leading to an erroneous decree. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Maintainability of Suit - The main issue concerns the maintainability of the suit in light of the statutory bar under Section 63 of the Act, which was not addressed by the lower court. (Paras 1-2)

(C) Substantial Question of Law - The court admits the substantial question of law regarding the suit’s maintainability given the statutory provisions. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was correct in recognizing the bar under the Act, which the First Appellate Court failed to consider.

Issues: Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar under Section 63 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions that bar suits concerning land acquisition proceedings.

Result: Appeal admitted.

Advocates:
MR B K SINGH, GA, ASSAM

ORDER

, learned counsel for the appellant, who by means of this appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC has put to challenge a judgment and decree dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 32/2018 allowing the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 290/2013. It is submitted that the suit land in question was the subject matter of an acquisition proceeding pertaining to LA Case No. 1/2012-13 (RLA) 312/2012/9 dated 27.09.2013 which is not disputed and therefore there was a clear bar in Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 . It is also submitted that the aforesaid aspect was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and without there being any discussion on that issue, the suit has been decreed by the First Appellate Court.

Admit on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar under Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?”

This Court may frame any other substantial questions of law at the time of hearing with notice to the respective parties.

Call for the records.

Let Shri K. K. Bhattacharya, learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. Let extra copies of the memo of appeal along with the enclosures be served upon him within 2 (two) days.

Let steps be taken for service of notice upon the respondent nos. 1, 5 & 6 by usual process.

Steps within 3 (three) days.

List this matter after 6 (six) weeks along with the service report.