Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 553 (GAU)

M. S. Dawngliana v. District Collector

2011-06-28

H.BARUAH

body2011
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for and on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2009 under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby and whereunder the reference petition made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed. 3. Appellant herein is the holder of LSC No. W.20 of 1989 and LSC No. W.21 of 1989 and a portion of the land under the aforesaid LSCs measuring 1500 sq.mtrs having been acquired by the Respondent for construction of an approach road leading to the Industrial Growth Centre situated at Luangmual, compensation for such acquired land having not been paid despite his representations made to the Respondent, after issue of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure filed Civil Suit No. 6 of 2001 claiming payment of Rs. 8,27,500/- as compensation for occupation of said land and destruction of trees standing thereon. The aforesaid suit was contested by the Defendants therein by filing written statement. It appears that Defendants agreed to make payment of Rs. 48,420/- as compensation for damage of land but Appellant refused to accept the amount. 4. The Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style; 2) Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants; 3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation estoppel and acquiescence; 4) Whether the Plaintiff had developed the lands under LSC No. W.20/89 and LSC No. 21/89 by planting trees and cash crops; 5) Whether the Plaintiff's land was encroached upon the Defendants No. 1-3 while constructing the approach road to the Industrial Growth Centre at Luangmual and as a result damaged a number of crops and trees planted by the Plaintiff; 6) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed, if so, to what extent. 5. 5. After due trial the said was decreed and while decreeing Defendant No. 4 therein was directed to assess the compensation for acquisition of the land measuring 1500 sq.mtrs and damaging standing trees, crops thereon belonging to the Plaintiff/Appellant within a period of 3 (three) months and further directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of another 3 (three) months from the date of assessment with interest thereon. 6. As per direction of the Trial Court the Defendant No. 4 submitted a draft supplementary award amounting to Rs. 68,295/- in all. 7. The Appellant being aggrieved by the draft award prepared by the District Collector, Aizawl (Defendant No. 4) made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,27,500/-. The aforesaid reference was dismissed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl by the judgment and order dated 24.1.2011 which is now under challenge. 8. The portion of the land as indicated above of the Appellant was admittedly not acquired by issuing notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of the approach road leading to the Industrial Growth Centre, Luangmual and no compensation was also granted by the District Collector. The draft Supplementary award prepared by the District Collector is per direction of the trial court made vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2008. It has already been indicated herein before the trial court directed the District Collector to compute the award in respect of the encroached land measuring 1500 sq.mtrs belonging to the Appellant. The aforesaid award is a part of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2001. 9. The aforesaid suit having been filed by the Appellant for money on account of encroachment of his land by the Respondent herein for construction of the approach road connecting the Industrial Growth Centre and the suit having been decree in favour of the Plaintiff, the compensation so computed by the District Collector is a decree passed by the Trial Court. The decree having been so passed the Appellant would have no occasion to prefer a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which however culminated this present appeal. The decree having been so passed the Appellant would have no occasion to prefer a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which however culminated this present appeal. The compensation so computed by the District Collector is not on account of acquisition of the land by the District Collector for construction of the approach road but on account of a decree passed in the Civil Suit No. 6 of 2001. 10. In the circumstances of the facts, the Appellant could have approached the trial court for review of the award so computed by the District Collector, since the award is a part of the decree. Appellant instead of filing a review petition preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of the passing of the decree, the reference application under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act could not have been maintainable. 11. Taking note of all the facts and the decree passed by the learned Trial Court of the nature as indicated above, this Court is of considered view that the Appellant has wrongly approached this Court. 12. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. Appellant would however be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal, if so, advised. Appeal dismissed