Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1023 (GAU)

Sunil Barman v. State of Assam

2018-07-12

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Counsel for the respondents. The present petitioners on earlier occasion approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 695/96 on the ground that land of the petitioners was acquired by the State in the year 1981 and possession was taken over and thereafter the total compensation was determined at Rs. 1,75,247/- in connection with LA Case No. 3/89-90. The petitioners did not challenge the quantum of compensation but they were aggrieved for non-payment of interest on the compensation amount as provided under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The said Civil Rule No. 659/96 was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2001 observing as follows:- "The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall pay interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% on the expiry of such period of one year from the date on which possession was taken. The respondent Collector, Dhubri is directed to release the compensation within a period of two months and the amount of interest as stated above, till the amount is deposited before the state Bank." 3. As the respondents failed to disburse the interest w.e.f. 22.02.1981, being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) 442/09. In the said Contempt Petition, it was raised that the respondent ought to have considered the possession of the requiring Department w.e.f. 22.02.1981 instead the interest was disbursed w.e.f. 14.10.1998. The said Contempt Petition was closed by holding that on earlier occasion similar Contempt Petition was filed which was closed on 05.05.2006. While closing the said Contempt Petition a liberty was given to the present petitioners to seek the remedy by filing separate writ petition. On the said grant of leave, the present writ petition is preferred for a direction to the respondents to treat 22.02.1981 as the date of possession of the requiring Irrigation Department and pay interest from 22.02.1981 to 14.10.1998. It would not be out of place to mention here that by considering the date of possession as 14.10.1998, an amount of Rs. It would not be out of place to mention here that by considering the date of possession as 14.10.1998, an amount of Rs. 2,66,718/- was already paid to the petitioners taking the interest part as per the order of Civil Rule 659/96 for a period of three years ten months eighteen days w.e.f. 14.10.1998. 4. Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of possession by the department was held by this Court while disposing the Civil Rule No. 659/96 to be from the year 1981 as such non-calculation of the interest from the year 1981 till 1998 is intentional on the part of the respondents. 5. Dr. Ahmed on the other hand submits that the land of the petitioners was acquired for irrigation purpose and the Revenue Authority and the Collector has determined the compensation by taking into consideration the date of possession as 14.10.1998. The Irrigation Department has nothing to say inasmuch as the department is the requiring Department and if the Collector directs the department to pay the interest w.e.f. 1981 the department will release the said amount. Dr. Ahmed further referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 3 submits that the interest was calculated from 14.10.1998 but as per the certificate of possession issued the date of delivery of possession is shown as 25.11.1998. 6. Mr. Baruah on the other hand submits that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession was taken by the department in the year 1981 is not accepted. He supports the contention of the Dr. Ahmed and submits that the certificate of possession is the only documentary evidence and as such the calculation of interest w.e.f. 14.10.1998 is correct. 7. Perused the writ petition, the earlier order disposing of the Civil Rule No. 659/96, the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1. From the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 3, it is found that in order to implement the Deep Tube Well Scheme of the year 1981 at Village Joredanga Part-I and Part-II, Land Acquisition Case No. 3/89-90 was initiated by the Revenue Authorities at the instance of the Irrigation Department for acquisition of 4 Bigha-3 Kathas-8 Lechas land of the petitioners and others. However, the demarcation could not be carried out due to absence of staff in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Manka-char, though the actual possession was taken on 05.11.1998 as apparent from the certificate dated 25.11.1998 which is annexed as Annexure-B of affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 3. 8. From the said affidavit-in-opposition Annexure-C is the letter No. GGWD/Esstt/85/80-81/472 dated 22.02.1981 which was issued to the one of the petitioners, Sri Sunil Barman by the Executive Engineer, Goalpara, Ground Water Division, Irrigation. It is seen that as per the agreement entered by the Executive Engineer and Sri Sunil Barman the Executive Engineer had started construction work of the Deep Tube Well over the land of the said Sri Sunil Barman w.e.f. 22.02.1981. From the said letter itself it is apparent that the valuation of the land would be paid to the said Sri Sunil Barman, in due course of time on assessment observing the formalities. This letter is denied by the Government on the ground that the Collector is not bound by any informal agreement between the requiring Department and the land owner facilitating the use of land prior to acquisition. It is also seen from the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 3 that the notification of LA Case No. 3/89-90 was issued on 18.03.1997 which was published vide Gazette Notification of 30.04.1997. 9. From the aforesaid, discussion it is clear that the petitioners had to give up their possession over their land for the said Deep Tube Well project w.e.f. 22.02.1981. The petitioners gave up their possession on the promise made by the Executive Engineer for the valuation of the land to be paid on assessment of the same by the Civil Authority after observing all the formalities. The said delivery of possession by the petitioners itself amounts to surrendering of the right of enjoyment of that immovable property for the public purpose. The petitioners cannot be left without any compensation after giving up their possession over the land which admittedly was taken possession by the Executive Engineer as per letter dated 22.02.1981 on the promise that the Civil Authority will make the payment observing all the formalities. 10. The petitioners cannot be left without any compensation after giving up their possession over the land which admittedly was taken possession by the Executive Engineer as per letter dated 22.02.1981 on the promise that the Civil Authority will make the payment observing all the formalities. 10. On perusal of the order while disposing of the Civil Rule No. 659/96, this Court took note of the fact that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State in the year 1981 and possession was taken over where after the compensation was determined at Rs. 1,75,247/-. The said order was passed in presence of the learned Government Advocate and as per the operative portion of the order dated 23.08.2001, a direction was given to the respondent to pay the interest on the compensating amount at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% at the expiry of such period of one year from the date of which possession was taken. While passing the said order, there was no such dispute with respect to the date of possession taken over by the requiring Department as the order shows that possession was taken in the year 1981. 11. The said fact of possession is supported by the letter dated 22.02.1981 of the Executive Engineer referred herein above. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the intent of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which is specifically to compensate the persons affected by acquisition, I hereby opine that the petitioners be compensated for parting with the possession of the land from 22.02.1981 by calculating the interest w.e.f. the said date 22.02.1981. 12. The petitioner shall submit the certified copy of this order to the Collector, South Salmara-Mankachar District, Hatsingimari and on receipt of the certified copy of the order passed in this writ petition, the Collector shall take necessary steps to calculate the interest over the compensation amount w.e.f. 22.02.1981 till 14.10.1998 and disburse the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.