Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1190 (GAU)

Bharat Das v. State of Assam

2017-08-29

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2017 and Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.4878/2016. Also heard Dr. BN Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent, SBI as well as Mr. G Pegu, learned State counsel. 2. The writ petition being WP(C)No.4878/2016 has been preferred by the petitioner Amrit Kalita and another on the plea that the land acquired in LA Case No.11/2012 in respect of 1 bighas 2 kathas and 17 lechas of land under Dag No.46 Patta No.394 of Village Mazirgaon, Mouza Ramcharani, District: Kamrup (M) is a joint ownership land of the said two writ petitioners, along with respondent Nos.5 and 6, therein, namely, Dharmeswar Das and Bharat Das. 3. The said petitioner has submitted a genealogy of the family tree which would indicate that while Dharmeswar Das and Bharat Das belonged to one branch of the family tree of one Bhangenia, Amrit Kalita and Ramani Kalita belongs to the other branch. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that Bhangenia has two legal heirs namely, Hachi Ram Mandal and Sonaram/Kantiram. The petitioners, Amrit Kalita and Ramani Kalita are the descendants of Hachi Ram Mandal whereas Bharat Das, Ratneswar Das and Dinesh Das are the descendants of Sonaram/Kantiram. On the basis of the aforesaid family tree, the petitioners make a claim that in respect of the amount of Rs.40,12,920/- awarded as compensation in LA Case No.11/2012, in respect of the aforesaid land, the petitioners are also entitled to a 50% share of the same. 5. Accordingly, in this writ petition, prayer had been made that out of the amount of Rs.40,12,920/- which had been assessed in the aforesaid LA Case, the amount of Rs.20,06,460/- be directed to be paid to the petitioners Amrit Kalita and Ramani Kalita. 6. On the other hand, the WP(C)No.1976/2017 had been preferred by Bharat Das wherein the aforesaid Amrit Kalita and Ramani Kalita are arrayed as respondent Nos.6 and 7 respectively. 7. By this writ petition, the petitioner Bharat Das seeks the relief that the freezing/attachment of his savings Bank Account No.10823968198 in the respondent SBI Gauhati University Branch be set aside. Some further prayers were made that the order dated 02.03.2017 in WP(C)No.512/2017 be complied with. 8. 7. By this writ petition, the petitioner Bharat Das seeks the relief that the freezing/attachment of his savings Bank Account No.10823968198 in the respondent SBI Gauhati University Branch be set aside. Some further prayers were made that the order dated 02.03.2017 in WP(C)No.512/2017 be complied with. 8. It is to be noted that against the order dated 02.03.2017 in WP(C)No.512/2017, a review petition was preferred by the respondent, SBI authorities being Review Pet.No.68/2017. By the order dated 14.08.2017, the said order of 02.03.2017 in WP(C)No.512/2017 had been modified and recalled. 9. In view of the order passed in the review petition, the prayer of the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2914 for complying the said order dated 02.03.2017 in WP(C)No.512/2017 is no longer maintainable. 10. On a consideration of the rival claims of the writ petitioners in WP(C)No. 4878/2016 and the petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2017, it is noticed that the core issue between the parties is regarding apportionment of the amount of Rs. 40,12,920/-, which had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in LA Case No.11/2012. 11. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which Act the aforesaid LA Case was conducted and proceeded, provides that when the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 12. Section 2 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 defines the expression Court to mean a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer within a specified local limit to perform the functions of the Court. 13. The learned State counsel informs this Court that the appropriate Government has not appointed any Special Judicial Officer for the purpose of the expression Court and, therefore, it is to be construed that the expression Court under Section 30 of the Act refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 14. 13. The learned State counsel informs this Court that the appropriate Government has not appointed any Special Judicial Officer for the purpose of the expression Court and, therefore, it is to be construed that the expression Court under Section 30 of the Act refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 14. In such view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate that as the dispute between the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.4878/2016 and the petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2017 is for apportionment of the amount of compensation of Rs.40,12,920/- assessed by the Land Acquisition Authorities in LA No.11/2012, the appropriate remedy under the law before the parties would be to avail the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 15. It has been stated that the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.4878/2010 had made an application before the District Collector, Kamrup(M) for an appropriate apportionment of the amount of compensation assessed in the said LA Case No.11/2012. 16. As an application had already been made by taking into consideration the provision of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appropriate action expected of the District Collector was to refer the dispute raised by the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.4878/2016 for a decision of the Court. 17. As Section 30 specifically provides that in the event of there being any dispute as regards apportionment of the compensation settled under Section 11, it is for the Collector to refer such dispute for decision of the Court, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector does not have any further jurisdiction of adjudicating upon any such claim made by any of the parties. As the Deputy Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any claim on his own, other than referring the dispute to the Court, this Court is of the view that the order dated 19.12.2016 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M) requiring the respondent, SBI to freeze the Bank Account No. 10823968198 in the respondent SBI Gauhati University Branch of the petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2017, to be also without any jurisdiction and authority of law. 18. 18. As it has been held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to ask the SBI to disallow the petitioner in WP(C)No.1976/2017 to operate his Bank Account, it is also provided that in the same manner, the SBI, Gauhati University Branch shall also not prevent the said petitioner of WP(C)No.1976/2017 from operating the said account till any such order that may subsequently be passed by an appropriate authority. 19. In such view of the matter, it is provided that the District Collector Kamrup(M) shall now refer the claim for apportionment of the compensation raised by the petitioners in WP(C)No.4878/2016 for a decision of the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 20. Upon the said dispute being referred to the Court, the Court would consider whether to pass any interim order in the matter or not, after hearing both the parties to the dispute, and, accordingly, follow the procedure of law to determine the dispute between the parties. 21. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M)/District Collector, Kamrup(M) is directed to refer the dispute raised by the petitioners in WP(C)No.4878/2016 to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 22. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 23. In view of the order passed in these writ petitions, all the connected interlocutory applications stands closed.