Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 632 (GAU)

Pronami Neog v. State Of Assam

2020-08-07

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2020
JUDGMENT Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. R.P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent no. 6 to deposit the petitioner''s share of land acquisition compensation as per order dated 24.01.2020 and subsequent orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar into the official account of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has projected that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Harendra Nath Kalita, was the owner of a particular plot of land which was acquired for construction of N.H.-37 (4 Lane) at Sivasagar. The total quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.54,46,280/- (Rupees Fifty four lakh forty six thousand two hundred eighty only). The father of the petitioner had already expired, leaving behind four legal heirs, being the petitioner, Gita Borah Kalita, her mother (respondent no.6), and two younger brothers. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to one- fourth share of compensation, amounting to Rs.13,61,570/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh sixty one thousand five hundred seventy only). It is submitted that by an order dated 27.06.2018, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar, had held that the petitioner was eligible/ entitled to get compensation against the acquired land and, as such, although the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the entire compensation amount of Rs.54,46,280/-, by a letter dated 03.07.2018, the petitioner requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.) to pay into her account a cheque only to the extent of her entitled share of Rs.13,61,570/-. Thereafter, the petitioner and her mother, namely, Gita Borah Kalita (respondent no.6) had entered into an agreement dated 15.09.2018, thereby allowing the respondent no.6 to withdraw the entire compensation by providing that the respondent no. 6 would hand over account paying cheque of State Bank of India bearing No. 081335 dated 15.09.2018 amounting to Rs.13,61,572/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and her mother, namely, Gita Borah Kalita (respondent no.6) had entered into an agreement dated 15.09.2018, thereby allowing the respondent no.6 to withdraw the entire compensation by providing that the respondent no. 6 would hand over account paying cheque of State Bank of India bearing No. 081335 dated 15.09.2018 amounting to Rs.13,61,572/- to the petitioner. It is projected that the land acquisition compensation amount was credited to the bank account of the respondent no.6 on 15.10.2018 and accordingly, the respondent no.6 had handed over a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner, but after handing over the said cheque, the respondent no.6 had got her account frozen and, as such, the proceeds/ effect of the said cheque was not credited to the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar for redressal of her grievance and accordingly, the said authority by an order dated 24.01.2020, directed the respondent no. 6 to deposit the share of the petitioner amounting to Rs.13,61,570/- in HDFC Bank account of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar within 07.02.2020. On non-compliance of the said order, subsequent orders dated 11.02.2020, 19.03.2020 and 04.06.2020 were passed by the said authority, however, without the desired results. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition for a direction upon the concerned authorities for effective enforcement of the aforesaid orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar. 4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department of the State has submitted that it is revealed from the petitioner''s FIR dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure12), that (i) the entire compensation amount was transferred to the bank account of respondent no. 6 on 05.10.2018; and that (ii) that on 05.10.2018, the respondent no. 6 gave a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner, which was dishonoured. Accordingly, it is submitted that the responsibility of the State ended on 05.10.2018, when the entire land acquisition compensation amount was transferred into the account of respondent no. 6. It is submitted that notwithstanding that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), had held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation, but by virtue of the agreement dated 15.09.2018, the petitioner permitted the respondent no.6 to collect the compensation amount. Hence, after the agreement dated 15.09.2018 was given effect to by releasing payment of entire compensation amount to the respondent no.6, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), had held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation, but by virtue of the agreement dated 15.09.2018, the petitioner permitted the respondent no.6 to collect the compensation amount. Hence, after the agreement dated 15.09.2018 was given effect to by releasing payment of entire compensation amount to the respondent no.6, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar had become functus officio, and the said authority cannot be said to be in seisin of the matter and had no power or authority vested in him by law to issue orders against the respondent no.6 to refund the share of the petitioner into the bank account of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, Hence, it is submitted that the orders passed on 24.01.2020, 11.02.2020, 19.03.2020, and 04.06.2020 ought not to be implemented by this Court. It is also submitted that this is also not a fit and proper case wherein this Court would like to put a seal of approval of the said orders, passed without power or jurisdiction by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar. 5. It is seen that in this writ petition, the petitioner has not annexed the award passed in connection with the land acquired. It only appears from the documents annexed that by an order bearing no. S.V.R./4 Lane/2/2016/43 dated 27.06.2018, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar held that as the next kin, the petitioner was eligible/ entitled to get compensation against the acquired land. In light of the admitted case of the petitioner that her father had left behind four legal heirs, this Court deems it fit to refrain from commenting how in the first place the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.A.) could have held the petitioner to be entitled to the award. 6. It is seen that by letter dated 03.07.2018, the petitioner had represented that she was entitled to her share of Rs.13,61,570/- out of total compensation of Rs.54,46,280/-. It is seen that thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 15.09.2018, allowing her mother (i.e. respondent no. 6) to claim and/or to collect the entire compensation amount, further agreeing to receive a cheque against her share of compensation. It is seen that thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 15.09.2018, allowing her mother (i.e. respondent no. 6) to claim and/or to collect the entire compensation amount, further agreeing to receive a cheque against her share of compensation. It is also seen that in clause 3 of the said agreement, it was provided that in the event of dishonour of cheque, the respondent no.6 would be liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act or under any other appropriate provisions of law and shall be liable for punishment under provisions of law and it was further provided that any party violating the terms and conditions of the agreement shall be liable under appropriate provisions of law. 7. Therefore, in view of the agreement dated 15.09.2018, the court is unable to find any fault on part of the concerned authorities of the State to transfer the entire land acquisition compensation to the respondent no. 6. The Court has to commend acceptance of the proposition argued by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department that once the entire land acquisition compensation is paid to the appropriate beneficiary, which in the present case was respondent no. 6, and the money being transferred to her account on 05.10.2018, the responsibility of the State to make payment of the land acquisition compensation ended there and that the subsequent dishonour of cheque issued by respondent no. 6 to the petitioner, purportedly towards her share of compensation would be a private dispute and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar had become functus officio after payment of the land acquisition award. 8. The matter can also be viewed from another angle. In this case, the land was acquired for four-lane National Highway, therefore, in the absence of the award been annexed herein, the Court presumes that the provisions of The National Highways Act, 1956 would apply, which does not contain any provisions to authorise the "competent authority" to be in seisin of the matter even after award had been paid in full. Thus, it is seen that neither the purported entitlement of the petitioner has been made a part of the award, nor there is any decree by a competent Court having jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that neither the purported entitlement of the petitioner has been made a part of the award, nor there is any decree by a competent Court having jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner could not show any provisions contained in any Act, Rules or notification in force by which the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar had jurisdiction to issue orders to respondent no.6 to refund a part of the award purportedly towards the share of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for the Court to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the concerned authorities of the State to enforce any of orders dated 24.01.2020, 11.02.2020, 19.03.2020, and 04.06.2020 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Sivasagar. Thus, the writ petition is found devoid of any merit and is dismissed with a hope that the petitioner may be well advised about the manner in which she can seek appropriate relief, if she may at all be entitled to any relief. 10. Before parting with the records, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Court or forum having jurisdiction in respect of her purported claim, as such, this order is without prejudice to the rights of the concerned parties.