Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 964 (GAU)

Naba Kumar Nath v. State of Assam

2012-08-10

AMITAVA ROY, ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2012
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Judicial intervention in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought for essentially to protect the rights of persons represented by the petitioners holding lands under Mouza Sila Sundari Ghopa in the district of Kamrup against acquisition thereof and/or dispossession therefrom dehors the law and without paying any compensation therefor. We have heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the parties and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate for the official respondents. 2. The pleaded facts outline the perimeter of the dispute. The petitioners have introduced themselves to be the President and Secretary of Changsari Krishak Sangstha (for short hereinafter referred to as the Union), comprised of agricultural land holders who are permanent residents under the Mouza aforenamed in the district of Kamrup, Assam. According to them, the persons represented by the Union are its members and hold land under pattas issued to them by the concerned revenue authority and have been paying the revenue/taxes as contemplated in law. It is stated that they have been possessing and cultivating their land as absolute owners over the years without any objection. That the Union has been authorized by its members to initiate mis-action has also been stated. According to them, their lands and the yield thereof are the only means of their livelihood. The petitioners have also set out the Dag and Patta numbers of the land of 24 of such persons contending that the same along with that of others, which form the subject matter of the proceeding is bounded on the- North - Ushajan Gaon, South - part of Cangshari Gaon, East - No. 31 National High Way and West - Railway line of North-East Frontier Railways measuring in all about 400 Bighas. The petitioners have alleged that in the month of May, 2010 while these persons were engaged in the cultivation of their respective plots, some anti-social elements sought to forcibly occupy the same, for which they submitted a representation on 07.05.2010 with the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) seeking his remedial intervention for maintaining law-and-order and for protecting their land and the crops. The representation was forwarded by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon to the O/C, Kamalpur Police Station for inquiry and report. The representation was forwarded by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon to the O/C, Kamalpur Police Station for inquiry and report. The petitioners have alleged that the police instead of providing protection to them and the other land holders started intimidating them with the threat to forcibly evict them from their lands. Being aggrieved, though, they approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) for protection of their legal rights, their endeavours were in vain. It was, thereafter, that on 04.07.2010, the Officer-in-Charge, Cangshari Police Out Post came to the village of the petitioners and handed over a letter dated 04.07.2010 requiring them to be present in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Rural), Amingaon on 06.07.2010 for filing their objection, if any relating to the land of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter for short referred to as the FCI). According to the petitioners, they along with other land holders presented themselves before the aforementioned revenue authority and handed over to him a representation on 06.07.2010 soliciting necessary informations and particulars with regard to the land of the FCI as they had no knowledge whatsoever about the same. According to the petitioners, though the representation was duly received by the Deputy Commissioner (Rural) at Amingaon, no further action was taken thereafter. While the matter rested at that, and the district authorities maintained stoic silence over the issue, the petitioners noticed that red soil and boulders were being deposited on their land. On making inquiries of their own, they could come to learn that a godown of the FCI was proposed to be constructed thereon though, neither the district authorities, nor any other authority had either issued any notification in that regard or had forwarded a notice to the petitioners or any other member of the Union intimating the acquisition of their land for the said purpose. Contending in this factual premise that their attempted ouster from the land was neither in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act) nor any other law and that thereby for all intents and purposes the persons involved were sought to be evicted therefrom without following any procedure legally prescribed and that too sans any compensation therefor, the petitioners approached this Court seeking redress, as above. In their additional affidavit, they have contended further that though this Court while issuing notice on 08.09.2010 had in the interim provided that the acquisition of the land in question would not be made except by following the procedure prescribed by law, the respondents kept on stacking construction materials on the land destroying thereby the standing crops thereon. They mentioned further that construing this illegal and uncalled for, intrusion into the land and interference with their right therein to be in violation of the orders of this Court, they brought these facts on record by filing an application for contempt registered as Contempt Petition (C) No. 400/2011. Photographs showing the land with the construction materials thereon were also appended to the additional pleadings. 3. Controverting the above, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner; Kamrup (Rural), I/c, Revenue, Guwahati has questioned the maintainability of the petition in absence of any essential information as to whether the Union is or is not an organization registered under the relevant law. The answering respondent however referring to 12 persons out of the list of 24 provided by the writ petitioners has asserted that their land had not been acquired in the Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2007. While denying the allegation of contemplated forceful dispossession of the members of the Union represented by the petitioners from their land, it has been stated that on 04.07.2010 the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup and Superintendent of Police, Kamrup did visit the site to have a stock of the progress of construction works where after, the Officer-in-Charge, Cangshari Police Out Post was directed to issue notice on the persons who had not received the compensation to be present in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on 06.07.2010. That on being informed, the petitioners were present on the date notified and that on their request they were allowed ten days to submit the documents in claiming their compensation, if any, was averred. According to the answering respondent, in the said meeting the persons concerned assured their full support as the land had been acquired for construction of FCI godown in public interest. According to the answering respondent, in the said meeting the persons concerned assured their full support as the land had been acquired for construction of FCI godown in public interest. It was pleaded further that land measuring 202 Bighas 0 Katha and 8½ lechas involved in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2007 had been acquired in strict compliance of the provisions of the Act and the possession thereof had been handed over to the FCI, which had started preliminary works, such as earth filling etc. That detailed steps in connection with the acquisition of the said land as contemplated by the Act had been taken was also stated. The answering respondent affirmed that in full compliance of the Act, an amount of Rs.9,16,29,124/- out of the total amount of Rs.12,38,92,941/- has already been disbursed to the pattadars whose land had been acquired. It was, however, mentioned in categorical terms that on verification, the land against the name of Shri Naba Kr. Nath, the petitioner No. 1 was found not to have been acquired. 4. In their affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners referred to the Notification dated 09.04.2007 in connection with L.A. Case No. 1/2007, to reiterate that the lands of the members of the Union involved had in fact been acquired and set out a detailed list disclosing the names of the land holders along with the Dag and Patta numbers of their plots corresponding to the serial numbers in the said notification. They further asserted that the respondents in very many cases did not notify the land for acquisition, but nevertheless occupied the same being located in between the lands acquired and within the boundaries surrounding the area. As an instance, they referred to the land under Dag No. 611 included in Patta No. 524 of Haramohan Nath and covered by Dag No. 2032 in Patta No. 387 averring that though this land was not notified for acquisition, it was taken over by the respondent authorities by raising big walls. They also referred to Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 371/2011 maintaining that the proceedings thereof would reveal the actual state-of-affairs. 5. They also referred to Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 371/2011 maintaining that the proceedings thereof would reveal the actual state-of-affairs. 5. In course of the hearing, it having been argued on behalf of the respondents with reference to the records of L.A. Case No. 1/2007 that the land referred to by the petitioners as theirs as well as of the members of the Union were not identifiable with the one acquired, the petitioners in view of the prayer made on their behalf were permitted to file additional pleadings. 6. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners following a perusal of the records of L.A. Case No. 1/2007 they admitted of having inadvertently furnished wrong Dag and Patta numbers of their land as well as of the members of the Union and made necessary corrections. They also in a table provided the particulars of the land, the names of the some of the land holders corresponding to the notification dated 09.04.2007 under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to L.A. Case No. 1/2007. 7. Mr. Atia has argued with reference to the pleadings and the disclosures from the original records relating to Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2007 laid before this Court for its scrutiny that it would be apparent therefrom that the lands of the petitioners and the other members of the Union, though are within the purview of the notification dated 09.04.2007 and in fact had been taken over by the respondent authorities, the owners in possession thereof were neither individually notified about the process nor were afforded any opportunity of objecting to the same. According to the learned counsel, all essential facts had been withheld from these land holders and though as claimed by the respondent authorities, meanwhile an amount of Rs.9,16,29,124/- has already been disbursed to the pattadars, it transpires from the records that in doing so, the actual owners in possession of the land involved had been excluded. Mr. Atia with reference to the note sheets in details has argued that though the petitioners and the other members of the Union are entitled to be paid the compensation under the Act for the acquisition of their land, they have been illegally denied the same. Further lands not within the purview of the acquisition proceedings have also been taken over without any authority of law, for which the intervention of this Court is called for, for redress. Further lands not within the purview of the acquisition proceedings have also been taken over without any authority of law, for which the intervention of this Court is called for, for redress. Referring to the chart prepared on the basis of the scrutiny of the official records, Mr. Atia by way of an example pointed out that though one Puaram Nath (since deceased) was a registered owner of land under Dag No. 2063 and Patta No. 136 and on his death, the compensation ought to have been paid to his legal heirs i.e. Sidananda Nath, Ananta Ram Nath, Dimbeswar Nath and Gubinda Nath, it was released to others without any rhyme or reason, thus illegally depriving the persons entitled thereto. The learned counsel asserted that such instances are galore as would be apparent from the records and thus a thorough investigation of the facts involved is called for. He urged upon this Court as well to direct the respondent authorities to furnish to the petitioners and the other members of the Union the Jama Bandi of their lands as applied for by them so as to further consolidate and reinforce their claim on the basis thereof. 8. Mr. Deka, as against this, has pleaded that the acquisition proceedings having been conducted in rigorous compliance of the provisions of the Act in course of which persons as contemplated by the enactment have been paid the compensation as due to them, the allegations made by the petitioners to the contrary are wholly misconceived. According to the learned Govt. Advocate, the pleadings of the petitioners are inherently contradictory to each other and militative of the tenability and bona fide of their claim. Further as the materials on record have given rise to highly contentious and disputed questions of facts, this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not embark upon a roving inquiry. According to Mr. Deka, the petitioners having failed to establish the imputations leveled by them, the petition ought to be dismissed. 9. We have duly considered the pleaded facts, the documents in support thereof and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 10. From the boundaries of the land measuring 400 bighas of land as provided by the petitioners, the site thereof is otherwise identifiable. 9. We have duly considered the pleaded facts, the documents in support thereof and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 10. From the boundaries of the land measuring 400 bighas of land as provided by the petitioners, the site thereof is otherwise identifiable. That a proceeding had been initiated for acquisition of land measuring more or less 27:039 hectares in village Changsari mouza S.S. Ghopa Sub Division, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup for construction of FCI godown is apparent from the notification dated 09.04.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Act. It transpires therefrom that the land contemplated therein is covered by numerous Dags and Pattas as set out in the notification and are located in two blocks. The boundaries, however, do not tally with those provided by the petitioners. The affidavit of Respondent No. 5 discloses that land measuring 202 Bighas 0 Kathas 8 ½ lechas was acquired in terms of the notification and an amount Rs.9,16,29,124/- out of the total sum of Rs. 12,38,92,941/- has already been disbursed to the pattadars. Though admittedly the petitioners had provided wrong dag and patta numbers of 24 persons, alleging that the same had been taken over without payment of any compensation, they sought to rectify the same with reference to the Dag and patta numbers appearing in the notification. Significantly, in the affidavit of Respondent No. 5 it was inter alia highlighted that the lands of 12 out of 24 persons named in the writ petition had not been acquired in the Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2007. No clear stand was taken with regard to others. This affidavit however discloses that the revenue authorities were open to consider the claim for compensation by persons interested in the land acquired, if found entitled in law. According to the petitioners, following the deliberations in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on 06.07.2010, though sought for by them, the revenue authorities did neither furnish to them the informations with regard to the acquisition proceedings nor did take any action over their claim for compensation. The representation dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, Guwahati prima facie bears out the correctness of their contention of seeking necessary details of the land involved so as to enable them to submit their objection if required. The representation dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, Guwahati prima facie bears out the correctness of their contention of seeking necessary details of the land involved so as to enable them to submit their objection if required. It is no longer res integra that if a land in occupation of a person in exercise of his right, title, interest therein is to be acquired for any public purpose, the same unfailingly has to be in compliance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 and on payment of compensation as mandated thereby. Any land, if not acquired, in accordance with law as above, cannot be taken possession of by forcible eviction of the occupant thereof. According to the petitioners, land of some has been acquired without payment of compensation and that of others by not undertaking that process and instead by show of force. That the notification dated 09.04.2007 is one under Section 4 of the Act is apparent therefrom. Thereby, objection under Section 5A was also called for from any person interested in the land involved. The expression "person interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land thereunder. It provides further that a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. Suffice it to mention, for the limited purposes of the instant proceeding that logically the relevant provisions of the Act dealing with assessment and the payment of compensation thereunder contemplate the claims of such persons. The averments made in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners with reference to the official records of the L.A. Case No. 1/2007 in our view warrants a detailed exercise to ascertain the correct state-of-affairs bearing on their claim for compensation for their lands, which they assert have been acquired in connection therewith. The chart laboriously prepared by the learned Govt. Advocate and the observations based on records made on behalf of the parties, according to us demand a closer scrutiny thereof. This is more so, in the perspective of the obligation of the respondent authorities in law to ensure payment of compensation to the persons interested in the land acquired under the Act. Advocate and the observations based on records made on behalf of the parties, according to us demand a closer scrutiny thereof. This is more so, in the perspective of the obligation of the respondent authorities in law to ensure payment of compensation to the persons interested in the land acquired under the Act. Vis-a-vis the land that has not been acquired, the possession of the occupant thereof cannot be disturbed without following the procedure prescribed by law. The pleadings on record do not conclusively establish that the lands of the petitioners and the other members of the Union are beyond the purview of the aforementioned proceeding, though it is not unlikely that in the process some plots have been omitted to be mentioned in the notice dated 09.04.2007. Be that as it may, on a cumulative consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record, a detailed fact finding exercise vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioners is called for to provide a quietus to the long drawn controversy. Having regard to the nature of the investigation to be made, this Court is ill equipped for the purpose and thus the same has to be undertaken by the concerned revenue authorities and their office staff, with the affirmative association of the petitioners and/or their duly authorized representatives. In the wake of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) The petitioners would submit a certified copy of this judgment and order with the Deputy Commissioner, (Rural), Kamrup, Amingaon, Guwahati within a week here from along with a copy of the pleadings of the parties and the documents laid before this Court; (2) On the receipt of the above documents, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, Guwahati would cause an inquiry to be made into the petitioners claim for compensation for acquisition/taking over of their land; (3) The Deputy Commissioner, Kaurmp (Rural), Amingaon, Guwahati would direct his authorized subordinate functionary to examine the aspect of issuing to the petitioners and the other members of the Union, the Jama Bandi of their land said to have been applied for by them. The said authority would after due deliberations with the claimants and/or their representatives advise them appropriately in this regard and cause issuance of the Jama Bandi to them, in accordance with law. The said authority would after due deliberations with the claimants and/or their representatives advise them appropriately in this regard and cause issuance of the Jama Bandi to them, in accordance with law. (4) The authority entrusted with the task of conducting inquiry would provide due opportunity to the claimants and record his decision vis-a-vis the same citing reasons in support thereof. Needless to say, the said authority would be at liberty to call for and examine all documents considered relevant by him for the purpose; (5) The petitioners and/or the other claimants would cooperate with the process and assist the authority concerned in proceeding with the inquiry. They would furnish to him all necessary informations including documents in support of their claim as and when asked for. (6) The exercise as ordered should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The original records of the aforementioned land acquisition case be returned to the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. No costs.