Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 382 (GAU)

State of Mizoram v. R. Chalbawiha

2019-03-26

NELSON SAILO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal by the State against the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2018, passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Champhai in Land Acquisition Case No. 5/2015, answering the reference filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act) in their favour. 3. The facts of the case briefly is that a proceeding for acquisition of land measuring 18,86,571 sq. ft. was initiated by the State Government for construction of road under Mizoram State Roads-II Project to be funded by the World Bank. The land was required by the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) of the Public Works Department, Mizoram (PWD). A Special Land Acquisition Officer was duly appointed to act as the Collector. Consequently, Award No. 2/2014 was declared by the said authority on 28.8.2014. As per the award, the land value of the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 was fixed @ Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. by the Collector and in respect of the respondent Nos. 14 and 15, their land was valued at Rs. 110/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved with such fixation, the respondents submitted a reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act before the Collector, while they received the amount of compensation as was assessed through the aforesaid award under protest. 4. The grounds taken by the respondents in their reference application amongst others was that the Collector failed to give proper valuation of their land, crops and/or any other property in the Draft Award No. 2/2014, as per the prevailing market rates. According to them, the prevailing market rates in respect of Periodic Pattas and LSCs as was given to other land owners of Zotlang area was Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. They further contended that their lands were located in prime areas and the values of their lands cannot be lesser than those whose land values have been fixed @ Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. The respondents contended that the area of Khankawn to Zotlang is within the Kanan Veng and New Champhai traffic point to Zotlang main road is within the New Champhai and which are within the town area of Champhai as that of Zotlang. 120/- per sq. ft. The respondents contended that the area of Khankawn to Zotlang is within the Kanan Veng and New Champhai traffic point to Zotlang main road is within the New Champhai and which are within the town area of Champhai as that of Zotlang. The respondents further claimed that they are entitled to payment of solatium and interest as per the LA Act along with the reference application and also enclosed the details of the claim as calculated by them. 5. In support of their claim in the reference application, the respondents individually examined themselves as their own witnesses. The respondents in their examination-in- chief filed in the form of affidavits contended that their lands were located at Khankawn to Zotlang within Kanan Veng, Champhai. The location of their lands was similar to those of other land owners whose lands were acquired and assessed @ Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. Since their lands were located in the prime areas of Champhai, the value of their land could not be lesser than the value of the lands which were fixed @ Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. Each of the respondents were cross examined by the Government counsels, who appeared for the Collector. 6. The Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Officer was the sole witness examined by the opposite party in the reference application. In his examination-in-chief also made in the form of an affidavit, the Collector deposed that a Special Committee to determine the value of the land, structures and crops etc. within Champhai town area was held in the residents of Pu Zahlira of Champhai Vengthlang on 11.11.2013 at 6:30 PM. The same was attended by the representatives of PIU of the PWD, District Administration, Village Council, Agriculture Department, Horticulture Department, NGO's and representatives of the land owners. The Special Committee upon deliberation, fixed the rate of land values and pursuant to which, the Award No. 2/2014 came to be pronounced. 7. Appearing for the State appellants, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the assessment made by the Collector and the fixation of land value, as per Award No. 2/2014 is only just and proper considering the location of the land and the prevailing market value of the land at the relevant time. He submits that the assessment of the rate of the land at Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. He submits that the assessment of the rate of the land at Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. pertains to the area of lands which were inhabited and also irrigated. The lands of the respondents, on the other hand, were un-habited and also un-irrigated and therefore, cannot be considered to be in the same footing. He also submits that the consideration for fixation of land value will depend on various factors such as, availability of basic amenities such as good and serviceable roads, electricity, water supply, access to markets, medical facilities etc. Therefore, the lands under habitation in Zotlang were assessed at Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. As for land which are un-habited, the same cannot be considered to have the same value. Under the circumstances, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the learned LA Judge committed error in fixing the market value of the land of the respondents at the uniform rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. and accordingly, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed their cross objection against the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2018, passed by the learned Addl. District & Session Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Champhai in LA Case No. 5/2015 as well. He submits that although the LA Judge enhanced the rate of land value of the respondents and also awarded solatium and interest to the respondents as well, but however, no interest payable to the respondents under Section 28 of the LA Act was awarded to them. He therefore submits that the respondents are entitled to interest under the aforesaid Section from the date of the award. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ratti Ram vs. Union of India and Another, (2016) 11 SCC 110 . 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further submits that the Collector in fixing the value of the land to be acquired has adopted a procedure which is dehors the land acquisition proceedings under the LA Act. He submits that a Special Committee to determine the value of the land, structures and crops etc. was convened by the Collector and the Special Committee by meeting on 11.11.2013 determined the rate of land value and which was also in the absence of the respondents and behind their back. He submits that a Special Committee to determine the value of the land, structures and crops etc. was convened by the Collector and the Special Committee by meeting on 11.11.2013 determined the rate of land value and which was also in the absence of the respondents and behind their back. He further submits that if the land value at Khankawn at Zotlang Village area can be fixed @ Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. there is no reason as to why the land of the respondents located at Kanan Veng, which is adjacent to Zotlang area should have a lower land value. He submits that the land valuation of the respondents therefore, cannot be less than Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. 10. Mr. A.R. Malhotra also submits that the respondents were able to establish their case for enhancement of their land value to Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. since their deposition in the examination-in-chief were neither falsified nor demolished during the cross examination. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order may not be interfered with by this Court and the respondents may also be awarded interest as per Section 28 of the LA Act. 11. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 12. From the above presentation, the question to be decided is as to whether the learned LA Judge is justified in enhancing the land value of the respondents from Rs. 30/- and Rs. 110/- to a uniform rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. The further issue to be considered is as to whether the respondents on such enhancement will be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act. 13. As may be noticed from the evidence of the Collector or the Special Land Acquisition Officer before the LA Judge, determination of the value of the land, structures and corps etc. within Champhai town area was considered in a meeting held by a Special Committee on 11.11.2013, which was attended by representatives of the PIU of the P.W.D. the District Administration, Village Council, Agriculture Department, Horticulture Department, NGO's and representatives of the land owners. within Champhai town area was considered in a meeting held by a Special Committee on 11.11.2013, which was attended by representatives of the PIU of the P.W.D. the District Administration, Village Council, Agriculture Department, Horticulture Department, NGO's and representatives of the land owners. Although the Collector in his examination- in-chief submitted through an affidavit deposed that the meeting was attended by the representatives of the land owners but in his cross-examination, he deposed that the respondents were not personally invited to attend the meeting and the respondents themselves at the same time denied of having participated in the meeting. Be that as it may, irrespective of whether the respondents participated in the Special Committee meeting or not, the question is as to whether the rate of land value can be fixed by a Committee, which is not contemplated under the L.A. Act. The Apex Court in the case of Digamber and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 406 has held that the land acquisition Collector while fixing the market value of the acquired land has to keep in mind the factors such as existing geographical situation of the land. Existing use of land, already available advantage like proximately to national or State highways or roads and/or developed areas and also market value of other lands situated in the same locality/village/area of adjacent or from near the acquired land. Such consideration as may be noticed is not seen in the present case. 14. The respondents herein admittedly have accepted the amount of compensation awarded under protest. Insofar as the Zotlang village area is concerned, the Collector assessed the land value @ Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. It is the specific case of the respondents that their lands are situated in prime areas between Khankawn to Zotlang and that the area of Khankawn to Zotlang is within Kanan Veng while New Champhai traffic point to Zotlang main road is within New Champhai and which are within the declared town area of Champhai, similar to that of Zotlang. Such contentions have not been falsified or disputed by the appellants before the Reference Court. The grounds raised by the appellants in the appeal that the land of the respondents cannot be compared to the lands which are habited and irrigated cannot receive the consideration of this Court. Such contentions have not been falsified or disputed by the appellants before the Reference Court. The grounds raised by the appellants in the appeal that the land of the respondents cannot be compared to the lands which are habited and irrigated cannot receive the consideration of this Court. This is because such grounds are not supported by the evidence led by the appellants before the Reference Court. The further contention of the appellants that the factors for determining the market value of the land will depend on the basic amenities available in an around the land concerned is not disputed. However, such was not the consideration of the Collector while the Award No. 2/2014 was made. Therefore, under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that he appellants have failed to make out a case for the interference of this Court. 15. Insofar as the claim for payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act is concerned, it may be noticed that the Apex Court in the case of Rati Ram (Supra) held that once the land value is fixed by the Court, it refers to the value of the land as per the award passed by the Collector that should carry all eligible statutory benefits. Therefore, the question as to whether the respondents will be entitled to payment of interest on the excess compensation will only have to be answered in the affirmative. In short, the respondents will be entitled to the benefit of Section 28 of the L.A. Act. 16. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is further directed that the respondents shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act, on the excess compensation as determined by the Reference Court Thus while not interfering with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 7.5.2018, the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer, while making he re-assessment as directed by the Reference Court shall also calculate the interest payable to the respondents on the excess compensation in terms of Section 28 of the L.A. Act. 17. With the observations and directions, both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection stands disposed of. The Caveat also stands discharged. Registry to sent back the LCR.