Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 234 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Jhanendra Choudhury

2000-07-06

BRIJESH KUMAR, D.BISWAS

body2000
D. Biswas, J.— Heard Shri C. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents, although the respondents were duly served. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 22.12.95. However, during the course of argument it transpired that the appeal was filed after expiry of the period of limitation. It is submitted that the delay of 385 days occurred due to various processes undertaken before filing of the appeal. According to Shri C. Choudhury, the matter had to be dealt with at various levels, including the Legal Remembrance and eventually approval for preferring the appeal was given. In this process the delay has taken place. Shri Choudhury urges that condonation of the delay in the instant case is necessary and it will be in aid of justice since the writ petition filed by the petitioners/respondents before this Court is not maintainable. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned. 4. The case of the petitioners before the writ Court was that by notifications dated 9.1.87 and 5.1.88, the Govt. of Assam acquired 684 bighas 15 kathas 9 chatak of land for defence purposes, located in Tarapur Part II Village in Cachar District, which also included the land of the writ petitioners. Although the Land Acquisition Case Nos 3 (a) and 3 (b) of 1986-87 were initiated, but compensation in respect of the land and trees, plants and crops standing thereon have not been assessed and paid. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that the delay, in assessing the amount of compensation has been due to a dispute with regard d to the assessment of compensation relating to trees, plants and crops raised by the petitioners which is still pending before the Land Acquisition Officer. A letter written by the State Govt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 26.5.90 was also referred to before the learned Single Judge, whereby the State Govt. directed the Deputy Commissioner to take into account the standing crops, trees and plants while making assessment. Considering the submission, more particularly the letter dated 26.5.90 written by the State Govt. A letter written by the State Govt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 26.5.90 was also referred to before the learned Single Judge, whereby the State Govt. directed the Deputy Commissioner to take into account the standing crops, trees and plants while making assessment. Considering the submission, more particularly the letter dated 26.5.90 written by the State Govt. , the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition will a direction that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Cachar, shall reassess the compensation taking into account the instructions given by the State Govt. , vide letter dated 26.5.90. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the dispute relating to assessment of compensation amount stood resolved in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the respondents were paid the amount of compensation on 8.8.1988 and 20.2.1990. This fact has been suppressed by the respondents and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. That apart, it is pleaded that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked in a land acquisition matter for the purpose of issuing directions to the Collector to re-assess the compensation amount. 6. The statement made on oath that the compensation was assessed and paid is not in controversy. Apparently the respondents made false averments in the writ petition to the effect that the. compensation matter is still pending due to dispute regarding assessment of the compensation for the plants, trees and crops. In our opinion, for this alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides that any person interested and who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court of the dispute pertaining to quantum of compensation It also appears from the memo­randum of appeal filed by the State that the writ petitioners had in fact submitted an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector, but the said petition was withdrawn by them by submitting an application on 20.12.90. This averment of the State remains unrebutted; and that being the position, we are of the opinion that once a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed and withdrawn by the petitioners themselves, they cannot be permitted to approach this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of any direction to the Collector in a dispute under the Act. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been designed to take care of all controversies that may arise out of acquisition of any land of any citizen for the purposes specified in the Act itself. Since adequate remedy by way of reference application has been provided in the Act itself, and in fact the writ petitioners also availed of that remedy, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petition cannot be entertained for resolving the dispute. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3829 of 1994.