Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1135 (GAU)

Jone v. State of Mizoram

2017-08-18

M.R.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, learned counsel for the applicants/writ petitioners. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Zaiemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent No. 4. 2. By this interlocutory application the applicants have prayed for modification/ alteration/clarification of the Order dated 30.3.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 2/2015, where by the said writ petition was disposed of. 3. The applicants as writ petitioners preferred WP (C) No. 2/2015, stating that their land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended for the purpose of construction of Indo-Bangla Border fencing from Marpara to Borapansuri in Lunglei District of the State that includes the land at Siliguri-II, Nunsury, Bindasora, Tablabagh, Malsuri, and Devasora villages. For the said purpose, Notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued on 6.11.2006 and the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, prepared the Draft Award No. 1/2009 determining compensation for acquisition of land involved on said Award at Rs. 4,12,15,007, which was approved by the Government in the Revenue Department of the State on 8.5.2009. It is stated that the respondents, Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Engineering Project India Limited had already taken over possession of the land involved in the said case. 4. Some of the land owners whose land were also acquired for the same purpose for whom compensation was awarded by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Lunglei in the Award Nos. 2/2008, 3/2008 and 2/2009 preferred a reference petition under section 18 of the L.A. Act and their such petitions on being referred, the Additional District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2009 passed in their reference case being L.A. Case No. 1/2009 allowed the prayer of the claimants of said reference case holding that they are entitled for the benefit of statutory interest under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and directed the District Collector, Lunglei to make assessment for necessary payment of said statutory benefits to the claimants of the said reference case, i.e. L.A. Case No. 1/2009. 5. Thereafter, one Sh. 5. Thereafter, one Sh. Rupayan Chakma of Tlabung as the representative of the landowners, whose land has also been acquired for the same purpose as noted above, where the District Collector, Lunglei awarded compensation to them in Award Nos. 3/2007, 4/2017 and 5/2017; Award Nos. 2/2008 and 3/2008 and Award Nos. 1/2009, 2/2009 and 3/2009, preferred reference petition, which were though referred to the court of learned Session Judge, Lunglei, but in the reference case being L.A. Case No. 1(4)/2014, learned Session Judge, Lunglei vide Order dated 18.9.2014 dismissed all the claims of the claimants of said reference case, i.e. L.A. Case No. 1(4)/2014 holding that their reference petitions were barred by limitation as provided under section 18(2)(a) and (b) of the L.A. Act. 6. Against the same, the applicants preferred the connected WP(C) No. 2/2015 for direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners therein the compensation as awarded by the Collector of Lunglei in his Draft Award No. 1/2009 along with interest and solatium under sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the L.A. Act, as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Lunglei vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2009 in the reference case in L.A. Case No. 1/2009 and also to pay further interest for delayed payment of the Draft Award No. 1/2009. 7. The petitioners in their said writ petition WP (C) No. 2/2015 had also prayed for quashing the whole proceeding regarding their reference petition being L.A. Case No. 1(4)/2014 (that was dismissed by learned District Judge vide Order dated 18.9.2014) or be regarded as non-existence for all purposes. This court, after hearing the parties by order darted 30.3.2017 came to the finding that instead of preferring appropriate application, the applicants preferred the said writ petition WP (C) No. 2/2015 against the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Lunglei in the reference case L.A. Case No. 1/2009, which is not maintainable. Accordingly, by order dated 30.3.2007, this court disposed of the said WP (C) No. 2/2015 directing the District Judge, Lunglei to consider the reference application of the applicants/claimants in the said L.A. Case No. 1(4)/2014 arising out of the Award No. 1/2009 of the District Collector, Lunglei afresh after issuing notice under section 20(b) of the L.A. Act to the respondents the Engineering Project India Limited and the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei. 8. 8. In this I.A. the applicants/writ petitioners of WP (C) No. 2/2015 have prayed to suitably alter/modify/clarify the Order dated 30.3.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 2/2015 by quashing the proceeding of L.A. Case No. 1(4)/2014 and to set aside the Order date 18.09.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Lunglei in L.A. Case No. 1/2014 so as to give complete justice in the matter. 9. The applicants herein have filed this interlocutory application in WP (C) No. 2/2015 that was finally disposed of on 30.3.2017 and the applicants/writ petitioners did not file any review application or writ appeal against the said order dated 30.3.2017. 10. It is a settled law that miscellaneous or interlocutory application can be entertained only in a proceeding which is still alive and such application cannot be entertained in a disposed of writ petition except for correction of any clerical or typographical or mathematical error as the court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed and more particularly the relevant case does not remain pending as it comes to an end as soon as it is finally disposed of by the court. However, in such a case when it is finally disposed of by the court, the said court is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law or can be altered when appropriate application for review is filed if applicable and allowed by the statutory provisions, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 11. Further, this interlocutory application though filed under section 151, CPC, but it is not an application for correction of any clerical and arithmetical error but specific prayer which was also prayed in the disposed of WP (C) No. 2/2015. 12. Moreover, in the present case when the WP (C) No. 2/2015 is not pending in the High Court, subsequent directions in such Interlocutory or miscellaneous application in said writ petition cannot be passed. 13. As such, this IA being not maintainable stands dismissed.