Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 35 (MEG)

Monen Sangma v. Collector, East Garo Hills

2017-05-26

DINESH MAHESHWARI, VED PRAKASH VAISH

body2017
JUDGMENT : DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. 1. These two civil reference cases have been registered on similar nature orders dated 12.04.2017, as drawn up by the Court of learned District Judge, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, while dealing with Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1 of 2014 and 2 of 2014. 2. After having heard the learned counsel Shri R. Kar appearing for the claimants and the learned Addl. Sr. GA Shri K. Khan appearing for the respondents and having perused the record, we find no reason to entertain these reference cases and rather deem it expedient to dispose them of, at this stage itself. 3. In brief, the relevant background aspects of these matters are as follows: The aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference Cases relate to the proceedings for acquisition that were taken up by the Government of Meghalaya under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [“the Act of 1894”] through its Home department in the year 2008 for raising/establishing 5th Meghalaya Police Battalion. It appears that after the necessary initial proceedings, the awards for compensation were made in relation to the land so acquired on 25.08.2008 and 10.06.2009 respectively. The claimants, said to be the persons interested in the land in question and being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, sought reference to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894; and hence, the aforesaid references were drawn up and were ultimately transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar for disposal in accordance with law. 4. Leaving aside the other aspects of proceedings, relevant it is to notice for the present purpose that after framing of issues, the claimants moved respective applications in the aforesaid Reference Cases under Rule 6 of Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure [“CPC”], seeking an order on the basis of so-called admission of the respondents while asserting that in the affidavits-in-opposition, the Deputy Commissioner had conceded on the market rate of land as determined by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council [“GHADC”] and as prevalent at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. It appears that after moving of such applications, the respondents even sought amendment of the averments taken in their reply but the prayer for amendment was declined by the Court. It appears that after moving of such applications, the respondents even sought amendment of the averments taken in their reply but the prayer for amendment was declined by the Court. Thereafter, when the applications moved on behalf of the claimants were taken up for consideration, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents despite repeated opportunities. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the claimants on the said applications, the Reference Court took note of their assertions that the compensation ought to be allowed on the basis of such so-called admission of the opposite party but thereafter, also took note of the fact that earlier, while arguing on the applications seeking amendment, the learned Government Advocate had referred to an order dated 30.09.2014 as passed in WP (C) No.378 of 2013 wherein, the High Court had ruled that the GHADC was not competent to issue any notification fixing the rates of compensation for the land acquired. The Reference Court, with reference to the aforesaid decision of the High Court, entertained a doubt as to whether the proposition of claimants, for passing an order on the basis of alleged admission, could be upheld or not; and for this reason alone, chose to make a reference to this Court. The relevant part of the reference order, as drawn up in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2014, indicating the consideration of Reference Court and the reasons for making reference, reads as under:- “….. From above statement of the OP/DC in his Affidavit in Opposition is seem to be clearly an admission that Rs 70,000/- per bigha is the prevailing rate of the GHADC during the process of notice u/s 4 of LA Act for acquiring the land of claimant and that he admitted to have paid the claimant with the old rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and seem indirectly stating claimant should have been paid with the actual prevailing rate of Rs. 70,000/- per bigha at the time of acquiring process when notice u/s 4 of LA Act was effected with the admission like this “The undersigned maintains that as per the Council’s revised rate it was of course Rs 70,000/- per bigha when notification u/s 4 of the LA Act was done and that payment was done at the old rate of Rs 15,000/-“ per bigha.” 6. At this stage, this Court is aware of the Law under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is reproduced hereunder for better appreciation; “Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.” 7. And on reading the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling cited by the Claimant this Court totally agrees that the Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment for the plaintiff and to pass decree on admitted claim and also that where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed it should apply. Yet again at this point of time this Court cannot play ignorance of the availability of another law which is the precedent applying to this case also which Ld GP for OP/DC has submitted to court during hearing of his amendment petition when he cited Hon’ble High Court Judgment dated 30.09.2014 as passed in WP(C) No. 378/2013 in case of Shri Mody M. Sangma vs. (1) The Garo Hills District Council represented by Secretary to the Executive Committee, GHADC, Tura; (2) The Chief Executive Member Garo Hills Autonomous District Council; (3) The Executive Member In-charge, Land Revenue, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council & (4) The Deputy Chief Executive Member, In-charge Land and Revenue, Garo Hills District Council (GHADC), Tura by which the GHADC, Tura was ruled not a competent authority to issue the impugned Notification dated 01.10.2012 which was accordingly quashed by Hon’ble High Court. The said impugned Notification dated 01.10.2012 was issued by GHADC for fixing the amount of compensation of rate of compensation to be paid for the land acquired by the Central Govt. as well as by the Govt. of Meghalaya and it was notified in the govt. of Meghalaya Gazette. Though the cited Hon’ble High Court Judgment is not directly concern to instant case but the law point from the cited Judgment of Hon’ble High Court is on the competency of the GHADC to determine the rate of compensation on land acquisition be it by Central Govt. or State Govt. of Meghalaya Gazette. Though the cited Hon’ble High Court Judgment is not directly concern to instant case but the law point from the cited Judgment of Hon’ble High Court is on the competency of the GHADC to determine the rate of compensation on land acquisition be it by Central Govt. or State Govt. which Hon’ble High Court has decided in clear verdict that GHADC is not competent authority to determine rate of compensation in land acquisition by Central or State Govt. 8. The applicability of the cited Judgment of Hon’ble High Court Judgment dated 30.09.2014 as passed in WP(C) No. 378/2013 which is standing until date, is that it sets a precedent to the Subordinate Court while deciding Land Acquisition cases. In the instant case a judgment is prayed to enhance awarded amount by Rs 55,000/- per bigha by basing on rate revised by GHADC from awarded rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha which OP/DC has rightly or wrongly awarded so be it, to the revised rate of Rs 70,000/- per bigha prevailing at the time notice u/s 4 of the LA Act was effected by OP/DC as per his admission in Affidavit in Opposition. Regarding already awarded Rs 15,000/- per bigha by the OP/DC this Court will not comment as is not a court of Writ jurisdiction, but to award balance amount of Rs 55,000/- per bigha by basing on the rate of GHADC which Hon’ble High Court has ruled to be not a competent authority to determine the rate of compensation in land acquisition by Central Govt. through NHAI in this case is not accepted by this Court lest it will amount to Judicial impropriety when a Precedent is available for this court to peruse and apply accordingly. But rejection of this kind another question arises what will happen to claimant’s claim petition and entitlement if any when OP/DC admitted in his affidavit in opposition for Judgment has to be passed in favour of the parties for whom the facts to his claim was admitted. 9. Hence this being the position, this case now is caught between two laws available for this court to decide this matter i.e., one under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure and the other is the precedent in Hon’ble High Court Judgment Dated 30.09.2014 as passed in WP(C) No. 378/2013. 9. Hence this being the position, this case now is caught between two laws available for this court to decide this matter i.e., one under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure and the other is the precedent in Hon’ble High Court Judgment Dated 30.09.2014 as passed in WP(C) No. 378/2013. Just to reject on strength of above Precedent and disposed of Petition 2/2016 U/Or XII Rule 6 CPC which OP/DC actually has admitted in his affidavit in opposition and thereafter if to order for proceeding with the trial of the case then again this Court will have to deal again with this same tussle between the two law when time for judgment of the case will come. Thus this Court is in doubt and confusion how to proceed with this case as the case is caught between two law points which this Court is bounded either way. Hence in most humble understanding this court deem it fit to send up the case as reference to Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya which has the power for determining once and for all on the most crucial issue whether OP/DC mistake to base on GHADC rate for determining rate of compensation on land acquisition by Central Govt. or State Govt. is at the expense of claimant, if so, what relief/relief’s the claimant shall be entitled or on any other issue the Hon’ble High Court on its wisdom deem it fit and proper to determine or for any order that this court shall be directed this court assures to make endeavour to comply faithfully and expediently. 10. BA to classify this case and immediately to send up to Hon’ble High Court. 11. Let a copy of this order be given free copy to both parties for their information and necessary action if any.” 12. The learned counsel Shri R. Kar as also the learned Adl. Sr. GA Shri K Khan appearing for the claimants and respondents respectively are ad idem in their submissions that on the doubts/questions as indicated, there was no justification for making a reference to the High Court and the questions ought to have been determined by Court concerned in accordance with law. We find the submissions fully justified and see no reason that these references have at all been made to this Court. 13. We find the submissions fully justified and see no reason that these references have at all been made to this Court. 13. The sum and substance of the matter remains that on one hand, the claimants sought an order in their favour on the basis of so-called admission appearing in the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents while, on the other hand, the Reference Court noticed a binding decision wherein, this Court had ruled against the competence of GHADC to determine the rates for the purpose of award of compensation. Faced with this, the Reference Court, instead of determining the relevant questions and issues, adopted the course of making a reference to this Court while stating its doubt and confusion, as the case was so called “caught between two law points”. 14. It need be indicated in the first place that even in the matter where the provisions of CPC apply, reference to the High Court under Section 113 thereof is permissible only subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed; and one of the fundamental prescribed conditions under Rule 1 of Order XLVI CPC is that the Court concerned is hearing such a matter in which, the decree is not subject to appeal. Further, while making a reference, the Court concerned is required to draw up a statement of facts of the case and the point on which the doubt is entertained; and is required to state its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court. The proceedings in the Reference Court are otherwise open to appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 and thus, ordinarily, no reference under Section 113 CPC is envisaged. Moreover, the Reference Court has not stated its opinion on the point of doubt, if at all there had been any such point. 15. Even if the aforesaid shortcomings in the order of making reference are left aside for a moment, we are totally at a loss to find as to what are the two law points which the Reference Court found standing at contradiction or at so called tussle? It is difficult to appreciate as to why in these matters the Court, instead of applying itself to the requirements of law and determining the questions, has drawn up an order of reference to the High Court. 16. It is difficult to appreciate as to why in these matters the Court, instead of applying itself to the requirements of law and determining the questions, has drawn up an order of reference to the High Court. 16. The questions: as to whether the averments occurring in the affidavits-in-opposition amount to admission or not; as to whether on the basis of such averments, any order could be made in favour of the claimants or not; as to what is the ratio of the order dated 30.09.2015 as passed by this Court in WP (C) No.378 of 2013; as to whether on account of the said decision, the claimants are not entitled to the order in their favour under Rule 6 of Order XII CPC; and ultimately, what course of action is to be adopted for disposal of the Reference Cases, are all the matters within the jurisdiction of the Reference Court and the said Court is rather under an obligation to examine and determine the same. 17. It needs hardly any emphasis that in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, ultimately, the Reference Court is required to determine the fair amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, having regard to the matters enumerated in Section 23 of the Act of 1894 as also the binding decisions. The question as to whether any particular part of pleadings falls within the purview of Rule 6 of Order XII CPC or not could hardly be considered to be a law point of a nature which would be referred to the High Court for determination. Such a question has to be determined by the Court concerned after examining the record and the law applicable. Similarly, what is the ratio of a particular decision of the High Court and how the same is to be applied to the facts situation of a given case is not a question which would justify a reference to the High Court. We would refrain from making any further comments but would expect of the learned District Judge to examine the entire matter and to proceed in accordance with law. 18. With the observations foregoing, the references as made in these matters are declined. The records be immediately returned to the Court of District Judge, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar for proceeding further in accordance with law. 19. 18. With the observations foregoing, the references as made in these matters are declined. The records be immediately returned to the Court of District Judge, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar for proceeding further in accordance with law. 19. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the District Judge on 28.06.2017. 20. C. Ref Nos. 1 of 2017 and 2 of 2017 stand disposed of.