Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1456 (GAU)

Union of India v. Moinuddin Mazumder

2018-09-28

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Kakati, on behalf of the respondents. 2. A plot of land measuring 6 bighas 14 kattas and 5 chattaks of village Polarpar in the district of Hailakandi was acquired for the benefit of the requiring department i.e., GREF. It is stated that the 11 respondents herein are owners of the aforesaid 6 bighas 14 kattas 5 chattaks land and in the resultant Land Acquisition Case being L.A. case No.14/95., the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of 9,000/- per bigha. The respondent land owners accepted the said compensation with protest. In the resultant situation a reference case was instituted under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for enhancement of the award of the compensation. Consequent thereof, Misc (L.A.) Case No.137/2003 was registered in the Court of the District Judge, Hailkandi. 3. The said reference case was adjudicated by the Judgment dated 28.11.2005 wherein the value of the land was enhanced from Rs. 9,000/- per bigha to Rs. 60,000/- per bigha. In course of the reference proceeding the respondents through the respondent No.1 had produced 6 number of sale deeds which were exhibited as ext-1 to ext.6. It is noticed that amongst the sale deeds so exhibited, some of the sale deeds pertain to a very small area but on the other hand, two of the sale deeds pertain to an area which is around 12 kattas. 4. Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the land acquisition authorities states that 3 of the sale deeds exhibited are of the period subsequent to the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding. 5. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand, states that all the sale deeds exhibited pertains to lands which are located in an around the acquired land, and, therefore it reflects the true value of the land. 6. Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the requiring Department also takes a stand that the reference proceeding was time barred inasmuch as it was filed much beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. 7. 6. Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the requiring Department also takes a stand that the reference proceeding was time barred inasmuch as it was filed much beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. 7. As regards the contention raised that the reference case was time-barred, we are unable to decide the question in the absence of the records of the land acquisition authorities so as to verify as to what was the date of the award and when the reference application was actually made by the respondents before the authority. As regards the acceptability of the ext-1 to ext-6 sale deeds for determining the true value of the land, we have taken note of the evidence on behalf of the respondents which was led by the respondent No.1 namely Moinuddin Mazumder. Upon going through the evidence of said the respondent, it has come to the notice that although the respondents had deposed that 6 sale deeds have been exhibited, but there is no such evidence to indicate that the land contained in the six selections are of the same class and condition as that of the acquired land. 8. The law as regards the land acquisition is well settled that in case the value of the acquired land is sought to be compared with any other land by producing the sale deeds thereof, there is also a requirement for arriving at a conclusion that the land contained in the referred documents are of the same class, condition and advantage as that of the acquired land. 9. In the absence of such evidence on behalf of the respondents, we are unable to accept that the land contained in exhibits-1 to 6 can be made to the basis for arriving at the evaluation of the acquired land. 10. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate that this is a fit case where the reference court is required to reexamine the matter and take appropriate evidence as to whether the land contained in the exhibited documents are of the same class, condition and advantage as that of the acquired land. 10. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate that this is a fit case where the reference court is required to reexamine the matter and take appropriate evidence as to whether the land contained in the exhibited documents are of the same class, condition and advantage as that of the acquired land. Further as the matter is being remanded back, we are also of the view that the reference Court shall also give its decision as to whether the application for reference was made within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 or it was time barred, and for the purpose the records of the land acquisition authorities shall be called for and verified. 11. In doing so, the reference Court shall keep the examination limited to the six documents already exhibited by the respondents and arrive at a decision whether it belongs to a land which is of the same class and condition as that of the acquired land. As the acquisition is of the year 1995 and the reference case is of the year 2003, it is provided that the re-examination as required, be done and completed within a period of three months from today. In order to enable the reference court to arrive at its conclusion within three months, it is directed all the respondents involved shall cooperate and shall not delay the matter. 12. Accordingly, Judgment dated 28.11.2005 in Misc (L.A.) Case No.137/2003 is set aside. 13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.