Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (GAU)

Pradip Rasiwasia v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.

2014-06-06

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
A.M.Sapre, CJ., This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.5592/2010 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant him the relief claimed in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? The order impugned is short and hence it is proper to reproduce the same herein below in verbatim in full. “None appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. Nur Mahammad, learned Govt. Advocate appears for the State whereas Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel appears for the Tinsukia Development Authority. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for release of his land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 5.83 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 5149 and 5150 under Patta No. 1440 in Town Sheet No. 4 situated at New Development Area (Jyotinagar, Tinsukia) or to pay compensation at present market rate with interest. Case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid land was acquired by the Govt. of Assam for use of Tinsukia Development Authority in the year 1978 without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He has alleged that no compensation has been paid for such acquisition. Though the other respondents have raised various objections to the writ petition including delay and laches, Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh in his affidavit has stated that though the land was initially under the composite Dibrugarh district, after bifurcation of the district in the year 1989, the records of the case were transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. He has stated that from the records traced out in the Dibrugarh Treasury, an amount of Rs.1,35,792.37 was deposited by Tinsukia Municipality vide Challan No.1033 on 17.5.1982 before the Dibrugarh Treasury on account of acquisition of land for construction of drainage over Dag No. 5150, 5149 etc. of Tinsukia Town. However, till date no payment has been made by the Dibrugarh Treasury. Having regard to the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, petitioner may approach the Dibrugarh Treasury for release of the aforesaid amount deposited by Tinsukia Municipality. of Tinsukia Town. However, till date no payment has been made by the Dibrugarh Treasury. Having regard to the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, petitioner may approach the Dibrugarh Treasury for release of the aforesaid amount deposited by Tinsukia Municipality. This disposes of the writ petition.” Having perused the aforequoted order, we find no case to take any other view than the one taken by the learned single judge in the impugned order which rightly resulted in dismissal of appellant’s writ petition. Here is a case where the appellant was praying for the order to pay compensation for his land, which according to him was acquired by the State, but without paying any compensation to him by the State despite acquisition. This prayer was declined to him by the writ court and in our view rightly. In the first place, we find that appellant was not present when the writ petition was heard and yet the writ court entertained the writ petition as if writ petitioner through his lawyer was present, and went into the merits of the writ petition. Secondly, the writ court rightly recorded a finding that the government has long back determined the compensation for the land acquired and deposited the same with the government treasury for being paid to its rightful owner and lastly, the appellant was not able to show that he had some other land and no compensation was paid for it despite its acquisition. In any case, the matter before the writ court was stale and delayed one. Yet, it was entertained on facts and found no merit therein. We also concur with the writ court and find no merit therein for want of any material and factual foundation. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.