Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 688 (GAU)

Lucy Vanlalhruaii v. District Collector, Aizawl

2019-06-03

NELSON SAILO

body2019
JUDGMENT : N. Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Additional Advocate General for all the respondents. 2. This order will disposed of all the 4 (four) L.A. Appeals. 3. This is a second round appeal filed by the appellants before this Court except for L.A. Appeal No. 7/2018. The issue involve in all the appeals are similar except for the Grade of the land. L.A. Appeal No. 6/2018 pertains to Grade-A land while L.A. Appeal No. 4 & 5 pertains to Grade-B land. L.A. Appeal No. 7 pertains to Grade-C land. For convenience, the facts involved in L.A. Appeal No. 5/2018 will be referred to. 4. In the construction of road from Sihhmui to Sakawrtuichhun, the State respondents have acquired certain plots of land from various land owners including the present appellants. Acquisition proceedings was drawn under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). On conclusion of the proceedings, the District Collector, Aizawl District, Aizawl, pronounced Award No. 1/2013. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded to them, the appellants preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The Reference in respect of the appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 5/2018 was registered as L.A. Case No. 20/2014. The Reference was disposed of by the L.A. Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2017, by enhancing the market value and the land of the appellants from Rs. 60/- per sq. feet, as awarded by the Collector to Rs. 90/- per sq. feet. Further, solatium and interest, as provided under L.A. Act was also directed to be paid to the appellants. 5. Still being aggrieved, the Reference applicants i.e., the present appellants filed an appeal before this Court, which was registered as L.A. Appeal No. 3/2017. The appeal came for final consideration on 13.03.2018 and was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2018. This Court through the said judgment was of the considered view that although the L.A. Judge rightly appreciated the requisite ingredients forming the potentiality of the particular plot of land but it failed to consider one aspect raised before it by the concerned appellant i.e. the fact that after the acquisition, the remaining land of the appellant had become unusable. As such, this Court was of the view that a duty was cast upon the Court below to consider this aspect. As such, this Court was of the view that a duty was cast upon the Court below to consider this aspect. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the L.A. Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court to consider the factor of reduction in the value of utility of the leftover land, after severance of the land so acquired by appointing a Local Commission. 6. Pursuant to the above direction, the Trial Court appointed Mr. C. Lalthianghlima, Assistant Director of Survey, as a Local Commission vide No. 234/ADJ(A)/18 dated 10.04.2018. The appointed Local Commissioner after making verification of the land of the appellants submitted its report whereafter, the Reference Court vide Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 disposed of the Reference application with a finding that the appellants are not entitled to further compensation for the reduction in the value of utility of the leftover land. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court through the present appeals. 7. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellants by referring to Award No. 1/2013, passed by the District Collector, more particularly in respect of the land or LSC graded, as Group-B submits that the District Collector came to a finding that the land located in 2 (two) different locations i.e. Zihnghalkawn and Sihhmui area, were similar and therefore, considering the location and the gradient, a sum of Rs. 60/- per sq. feet was found to be reasonable and therefore, it was accordingly fixed. Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that the reasoning given in respect of the Sihhmui area and the fixation of Rs. 60/- per sq. feet was due to the fact that there was already a precedent for acquiring the land in that area at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. feet in the year 2012 when land was acquired for the N.F. Railways. The learned counsel submits that the market value of the land was however enhanced from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 200/- by the Reference Court when the appellants preferred a reference u/s of 18 of the L.A. Act. Aggrieved, the N.F Railways challenged the enhancement before this Court in RFA No. 24/2014, but the same was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2015. A further challenge was made by the N.F Railways before the Apex Court, which also was dismissed. 200/- by the Reference Court when the appellants preferred a reference u/s of 18 of the L.A. Act. Aggrieved, the N.F Railways challenged the enhancement before this Court in RFA No. 24/2014, but the same was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2015. A further challenge was made by the N.F Railways before the Apex Court, which also was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court was registered as SLP (C) No. 2583/2016. He, therefore, submits that fixation of Rs. 20 per sq. feet in respect of land in Sihhmui area acquired for Railway lines in the year 2012 has attained a finality. Therefore, the market value of the LSCs of the appellant covered by Grade-B and which were acquired in the year 2013 will have to be more than Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further submits that if the market value of Grade-B LSC is more than Rs. 200/- per sq. feet, the rate of Grade-A LSC has to be much higher than that. Likewise, the LSCs graded as Grade-C will also have a higher value and rate and not as fixed by the Collector or the Reference Court. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that during the reference proceedings, after Award No. 1/2013, was pronounced by the Collector, one Smt. Lalhlimpuii SDC was examined as the witness of the Collector. The said witness in her cross-examination deposed that while assessing the value of the land, location of the land appear to be the lone guiding factor. However, the L.A. Judge came to a finding that the land belonging to the appellant had the potential of being further developed keeping in view the amenities available as well as the location advantage of the acquired lands. The acquired lands of the appellants were located near the metal road which connect the University, Industrial Growth Centre road etc. Therefore, keeping in view such relevant factors, the market value was enhanced to Rs. 90/- per sq. feet. However, as already observed by this Court, the L.A. Judge failed to consider the factor of reduction in the value of utility of the leftover land, after severance of the land so acquired. Therefore, the L.A. Judge was directed to consider this aspect by appointing the Local Commission. 9. 90/- per sq. feet. However, as already observed by this Court, the L.A. Judge failed to consider the factor of reduction in the value of utility of the leftover land, after severance of the land so acquired. Therefore, the L.A. Judge was directed to consider this aspect by appointing the Local Commission. 9. However, the appointed Local Commission in making the verification and submitting its report failed to consider relevant factors while taking into account irrelevant factors, if not impermissible factors into consideration. Referring to the report of the Commission at page 89 of the paper book and which is also reflected in the impugned judgment & order of the L.A. Judge dated 25.07.2018. Mr. A.R. Malhotra submits that the reason as to why the un-acquired lands of the appellants were found not to have decreased in its value was only due to the reason that the land will be adjacent to a very wide main road in future. He submits that such finding is only misconceived inasmuch as, the market value of the land is to be assessed with reference to the date of publication of a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, which is 14.04.2013. Therefore, the finding of the Local Commission and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with by this Court and considering the enhancement made to Rs. 200/- per sq. feet in similar Grade-B land, Court may enhance the market value of the land of the appellants to a rate more than Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, in support of his submission relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Maya Devi through L/R and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2018) 2 SCC 474 . 10. Appearing for the respondents Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the reference made by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect LSCs categorized under Group-B in Award No. 1/2013 only pertains to a different location. The present acquisition of land pertains to Sihhmui-Ramrikawn and it is nowhere connected with the existing Airport road or the land acquired for Railway lines. Therefore, no comparison can be drawn between the 2 locations. The present acquisition of land pertains to Sihhmui-Ramrikawn and it is nowhere connected with the existing Airport road or the land acquired for Railway lines. Therefore, no comparison can be drawn between the 2 locations. Referring to the judgment & order, passed by this Court on 16.03.2018 in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2017, the learned counsel submits that the term of reference by this Court was only in respect of the value of utility the left over land after severance of the land so acquired and nothing beyond that. As directed, the Local Commission was appointed and who came to a finding that there was no reduction in the value of the un-acquired land of the appellants due to the fact that they have become accessible through wide roads and the same was rightly accepted by the L.A. Judge. He therefore submits that there is no merit in the appeals and the appeals be accordingly dismissed. 11. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the record requisitioned from the L.A. Judge. It may be noticed that apart from L.A. No. 7/2018, the other 3 (three) appeals were already considered by this Court on the earlier round of appeal where they were registered as L.A. Appeal Nos. 1, 2 & 3/2017 respectively. This Court after considering the contentious issues and grounds raised by the appellants came to a finding that the requisite ingredients forming the potentiality of the particular plots of land belonging to the appellants have rightly being appreciated by the Court below. However, one aspect of the matter raised by the appellants with regard to the reduction of the value of the utility of the leftover land or un-acquired land having not been considered, the same was remanded back to the L.A. Judge for its consideration by appointing a Local Commission. In terms of the said direction, a Local Commission was appointed, who made an enquiry and inspection of the location of the lands. Relevant portion of the report submitted by the Local Commission may be abstracted below:- "Of these 8 LSCs, certain portions have been acquired for construction of main road and the end portions of these lands are therefore acquired. The LSCs will therefore be leveling the main road thus constructed. Relevant portion of the report submitted by the Local Commission may be abstracted below:- "Of these 8 LSCs, certain portions have been acquired for construction of main road and the end portions of these lands are therefore acquired. The LSCs will therefore be leveling the main road thus constructed. The frontage will also be in level with Sakawrtuichhun main road and they will all have good frontages. The area of their LSCs have been narrowed but they are still in good condition. Attendance sheet of members present is attached along with a sketch map to ascertain the actual area of this land." 12. What can be understood from the above abstract is that for construction of road, some of the lower portion of the land covered by the 8 LSCs, were acquired and therefore, the lower area of the land will become adjacent to a fairly wide road, raising the value of the land. The higher portion of the land covered by the LSCs will also be adjacent to Sakawrtuichhun main road and thereby providing a good frontage as well. No doubt Section 24 of the L.A. Act clearly provides that the increased value in the un-acquired portion of the land cannot be considered by the Collector, while computing amount of compensation and entitled to the land owner. However, even by ignoring the view of the Local Commissioner, it only appears that there is no reduction in the value of the un-acquired portion of the land. 13. With regard to the submissions made by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the enhancement of the land acquired for Railway line in the year 2012, the Grade-B land in the present Award should be more than Rs. 200/- per sq. feet this submission in my considered view cannot be considered inasmuch as, the same was already raised in the earlier round of litigation i.e. L.A. Appeal Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2017. Although this issue was raised, this Court had remanded the matter back to the L.A. Judge only on the specific issue, as already mentioned herein above. That being the position, I am of the considered view that the same issue should not be revisited. 14. In so far as the enhanced amount of the market value of the land by the reference court in the earlier round, the same should be restored. That being the position, I am of the considered view that the same issue should not be revisited. 14. In so far as the enhanced amount of the market value of the land by the reference court in the earlier round, the same should be restored. This Court in the earlier round of appeal interfered with the Judgment & Order of the Reference Court so that a fresh calculation can be made after the issue regarding the reduction in value of the utility of the leftover land or un-acquired land was decided. Under the facts and circumstances, the enhanced market value of the land of each grade, as decided by the Reference Court in the earlier round of litigation, is hereby restored. Consequently, the market value of the land/LSC covered by Grade-A will be Rs. 120/- per sq. feet. Those covered by Grade-B will be Rs. 90/- sq. feet and while LSC/land covered by Grade-C will be Rs. 58/- per sq. feet. It is made clear that in addition to the market value of the land, the appellants will also be entitled to the solatium and interest as provided under Sections 23, 28, 34 of the L.A. Act. 15. With the above observations and directions, all the appeals accordingly stands disposed of. 16. Registry to send back the LCR.