Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 508 (GAU)

Sankar Prasad Dey v. State of Assam

2017-04-27

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. N. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar as well as Mrs. J. Dutta, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, as in the present petition, the subject-matter is jurisdictional error committed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, he may be permitted to correct the Cause Title to convert this revision into an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. The said prayer is allowed. The petitioner may correct the Cause Title and accordingly, this revision is converted into an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. By filing this application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.05.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, in Misc. Reference Case No. 1/2014, which was passed under Section 6 of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. 4. The brief facts involved in the case are that the petitioner is the owner of a passenger bus, bearing Registration No. ASU 7661, which was later on reregistered as AS-16-2144. The said bus was requisitioned on 13.12.1998 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, by passing an order dated 09.12.1998. The said bus met with an accident on 14.12.1998 and thereafter, the vehicle was released only on 03.03.1999. Therefore, a claim was made for compensation for making good the damage as well as for requisitional dues. In order to make the said claim, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1757/1999 and this Court, by an order dated 29.11.2000, held that the compensation along with the damage caused to the vehicle will have to be paid by the requisitional authority and, therefore, the said authority was directed to assess the compensation within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy. 5. The said order having not been complied with, the petitioner had filed a contempt case, being Contempt Case (C) No.220/2001 and during the pendency of the said contempt case, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 11.07.2003. However, the petitioner approached the authorities to enhance the compensation. 5. The said order having not been complied with, the petitioner had filed a contempt case, being Contempt Case (C) No.220/2001 and during the pendency of the said contempt case, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 11.07.2003. However, the petitioner approached the authorities to enhance the compensation. As his request was not acceded to, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C) No.5913/2010 and this Court, by an order dated 03.10.2010, directed the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Relief & Rehabilitation Department, to examine the petitioner’s grievance and also directed that if the petitioner was found aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, which have been paid to him as compensation, the respondent No. 1 therein would, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, make a reference to the petitioner’s claim to the Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 6 of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 and if such a reference was made, the Court will deal with and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the competent authority, by an order dated 30.01.2013, passed a speaking order, refusing to make a reference on the ground that he has already been compensated. However, in view of the final order passed by this Court in Contempt Case (C) No. 269/2013, a reference was ultimately made to the Court of learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, by order dated 07.06.2014. 7. The learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, issued a notice to the petitioner to appear in Misc. Reference Case No. 1/2014, fixing the date of appearance on 08.09.2014. The learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, by its judgment dated 27.05.2016, rejected the claim for enhancement of the compensation as made by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings of a reference made to the Court, the Civil Court is required to frame issues of point of determination and to give the judgment on issues. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings of a reference made to the Court, the Civil Court is required to frame issues of point of determination and to give the judgment on issues. He has referred to the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to project under the provisions of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Code of Civil Procedure is to apply in the proceedings before the Court. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the case of Union of India –Vs- Mahendra Nath Nath and Others, reported in 2015 Vol.2 (1) GLT 126 as well as Abdul Rahman –Vs- State of Assam and Another, reported in 2015 (2) GLT 159, and submits that in both the cases, the reference Court had framed issues and proceeded with the hearing. 10. The learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that as para-materia provision is not contained in the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 analogy contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be drawn. He submits that by the order passed by the competent authority on 30.01.2013, the petitioner was not found to be entitled to any compensation. However, in view of orders passed in the contempt case, the reference was made and the reference Court was also of the opinion that the claim made by the petitioner was without any basis. 11. Having heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the view that a reference Court, being a Civil Court, is required to follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the matter before it, which includes the framing of issues as well as determination of those issues on merit. However, in the present case in hand, the said exercise was not done by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the same amounts to jurisdictional error, for which this Court is inclined to interfere with the matter. However, in the present case in hand, the said exercise was not done by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the same amounts to jurisdictional error, for which this Court is inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, to frame the issues and shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by allowing the parties to lead evidence on those issues, as framed for trial. 12. This revision is allowed. 13. There shall be no order as to cost. 14. Let the LCR be returned forthwith. 15. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, on 29.05.2017, to receive further instructions from the said learned Court.