DWIJENDRA NATH SAHA AND ANR v. INLAND WATERWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K DEY, MR V K BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT, GA, ASSAM,SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 08.01.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 2; Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, , the petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri, in petition Nos. 374 and 375, arising out of L.A. Case No. 2/2020.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024, the learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri (‘trial Court’, for short) had dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 5 of the CPC for production of document from the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle on the ground that the cause of action of the L.A. is of the year 2009-10 and the matter is pending at the stage of argument and allowing the petition would tantamount to giving opportunity to bridge the gap and lacuna to the petitioner at the belated stage and therefore, dismissed the same. Page No.# 3/5

4. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners measuring 5 bighas 5 lechas was acquired by the respondent authorities in L.A. Case No. 3/2009-10, for establishment of terminal at Dhubri on behalf of Inland Waterway Authority of India and the Collector had assessed the value of the land at Rs. 12,00,000/- per bigha and fixed the compensation at Rs. 86,05,200/-, including solatium and jirat. But, the market value of the said land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 25,00,000/- per bigha. Though the petitioners had submitted objection before the Collector against fixing the low rate of the land, the dispute was referred to the learned District Judge, Dhubri, vide L.A. Case No. 2/2020 and the petitioners filed an application praying for production of document from the Circle Officer, Dhubri and to call for a report and also praying for examination of the Circle Officer, Dhubri to prove such report, and that the certificate of valuation is enclosed with this petition, and therefore, prayed for issuing summon to the Circle Officer. But, the learned trial Court had dismissed the petitions on the ground that the case is fixed for argument. Mr. Dey submits that the said order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and allow the petitioners to call for the Circle Officer, Dhubri to prove the valuation certificate. In support of his submission, Mr. Dey has referred to the following decisions: (i) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Saikia and Associates, reported in 2009 (1) GLT 151. (ii) Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573.

5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the petition. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, if Page No.# 4/5 such a permission is granted to the petitioners at the belated stage, then serious prejudice will be caused to the respondents as the matter relates back to the year 2009-10 and therefore, Mr. Bhattacharyya has contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused decisions referred by Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners and also the relevant provision i.e. Order 11 Rule 5 of the CPC which relates to power of Court to receive any document in evidence which has not been produced when plaint was presented.

7. It appears that L.A. Case No. 2/2020 is pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri and at the stage of argument. The case was registered in the year 2020. The original L.A. Case No. 3 was of the period 2009-10. It also appears that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of establishment of a terminal at Dhubri by Inland Waterway Authority of India. But, the value of the land at the relevant time was determined at Rs. 12,00,000/- per bigha and the total amount of compensation for acquired 5 bigha 5 lechas of land of the petitioners was assessed at Rs. 86,05,200/-, including solatium and jirat. The petitioners had objected to such fixation and accordingly, the matter reached the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dhubri, as L.A. Case No. 2/2020. It also appears that the very basis of filing the petition, under Order 11 Rule 5 of the CPC on 29.11.2024, is Exhibit-2 wherein no period is mentioned though the date is mentioned as 27.04.2011, which was purportedly issued by the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle, Dhubri, wherein he stated that the zonal valuation of the said land was assessed at Rs. 20,00,000/- per bigha. However, how this assessment was done and under Page No.# 5/5 whose authority it was done in the year 2011 after assessment of the compensation in the year 2009-2010, is not placed on record.

8. This being the position, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. There appears to be lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners, who remained silent till the date of argument and on such count, and there is lack of bona-fide on their part. The question of calling for a report from the Circle Officer, Dhubri does not arise at this stage. Moreover, the assessment was done in the year 2009-2010 and the Exhibit-2 is of dated 27.04.2011. How this Exhibit-2 will help the petitioner also not been unexplained.

9. Having taken note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties and also the relevant to provision of law, and the reason assigned by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have also gone through the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I find that the said decisions proceed on their own facts.

10. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant