Judgment · High Court · 2012

#5. Two fold arguments have been advanced by Mr. Deka, learned Senior counse l appearing for the appellants. Mr. Deka would contend that the reference court had committed an illegality in not considering the judgment and decree of the re ference court passed in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 whereby the Court awarded the compensation @ Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha for the land acquired under the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act vide Ext. 2 which requires interference under appellate jurisdiction.

#6. Mr. Deka, learned Senior counsel would further contend that the referenc e court while decreeing the case under Section 26 of the Act must ensure that th e provisions of the Act is fully complied with in determining the compensation o f the land under acquisition. In support of his submission, Mr. Deka had referre d evidence on record, more particularly, Ext. 2. The judgment and decree of the reference court passed on 09.09.1996 in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990, the certifi ed copy of which was produced by the appellants before the Collector for re-dete rmination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court a s required under Section 28 A of the Act, but the Collector did not consider the same. Again a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1996 was pr oduced before the reference court being Ext. 2. But the reference court also dec lined to enhance the compensation amount as awarded by another court for the sam e land vide the aforesaid award passed in Misc. LA Case No.9/1990, which requir es interference under Section 54 of the Act. The following decisions have been r eferred to in support of his contentions, viz., 1. (1991) 1 SCC 174, Scheduled Caste Co-Operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda -vs- Union of India and Others,

#2. dia and Ors. AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 308 (Banta Singh and Others -vs- Union of In

#7. Mr. PS Deka, learned State counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the evidence on record would show that the appell ants herein have withheld the sale deeds executed in their favour by the vendee for proper determination of compensation and there is no illegality in determini ng the compensation made by the reference court which do not require to be inter fered with in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#8. Heard the argument advanced by the contesting parties. Perused the plead ings along with the evidence on record and the decisions referred to. The Court would take up the second question as first in order to determine as to whether t he remedy available under Section 28(A) of the Act would be available in the cas e in hand. A reading of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, would amply demo 9. nstrate that when the Court allows any amount of compensation in excess of the a mount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the persons interest ed in all other land covered by the same Notification under Section 4 (1) and wh o are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that the y had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act by wr itten application to the Collector within three months from the date of the awar d of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re -determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court, whi ch is not the case in hand. Admittedly, the appellants herein sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against the award of compensation made by the Colle ctor under Section 11 of the Act being LA Case No.13 of 1990 and LA Case No.15 of 1990 and the case which has been referred as Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 where the reference court enhanced the compensation and therefore, the remedy availab le under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensat ion on the basis of the award of the Court passed on 09.09.1996 in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 is misconceived and therefore, the arguments advanced can not be a ccepted. In the case referred and reported in (1991) 1 SCC 174, Scheduled Caste C o-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in re-determination of compensation, Section 28 A is not applicable where claimant has sought and secured a reference under Section 18 and has even prefer red appeal to High Court against award of compensation. Hence the case of Schedu led Caste Co-operative (supra) has no application in regard to the argument adva nced relating to Section 28-A of the Act and the court answered the question in negative. In the case of Banta Singh reported in AIR 1988 P&H 308 (FB) (supra), th e court held that Section 28-A of the Act, in terms is applicable only to a case where the claimant had not asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act an d the applicant or the person, who had not asked for reference, filing an applic ation before the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court which re-determined the amount of compensation.

#10. Now, the question left to be answered as to whether the judgment rendere d by the reference court in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 enhancing the compensatio n to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha would be pressed i nto service though the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00 0/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in these two appeals and whether the appellants a part from the benefits awarded by the reference court are entitled to the benefi ts provided under Section 23 whereof the court should take into consideration ce rtain factors at the time of taking possession of the land by the Collector rela ting to standing crops or trees on the land vis-à-vis the reasonable expenses in curred for change of residence incidental to change.

#11. In order to determine the above question, the court has gone through the evidence on record wherein in LA Case No.13/1990, the appellants as PW 1 has de posed that she had her house on the said land including zirats and one RCC ring well whereas the benefit of standing crops and shifting of residence were denied by the Collector. PW 2, Nur Jamal Hoque has stated that his house is adjacent t o the house of Aisha Khatun (appellant). She had some betel nut, jackfruit, mang o, bamboo and orange trees and a ring well on the said land including her own ho uses and in the reference case he got Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only from the reference court as compensation. PW 2 also proved the certified co py of the order passed in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 vide Ext.2. Before the refe rence court, Atowar Rahman was examined as PW 3 who had stated that in the year 1985 he purchased 9 lechas of land at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only fr om one Bhupen Roy vide Ext. 3, sale deed. The land is situated at village Salpar a Molandubi.

#12. In case of the appellant in LA Case No.15/1990 Safior Rahman was examine d before the reference court as PW 1 who had deposed that his land was acquired in the year 1986, but the process was started from the year 1981 and at the time of acquisition he had two Assam type houses with brick walls and two thatches h ouse. He had further stated that for acquisition of land he had to shift his res ident for which no compensation was paid. No compensation was given for the tree s and removing the houses. The other witness Sohidur Rahman PW 3 had stated that his house was adjacent to the house of Safior and at the time of acquisition of land, there were four houses and some zirats on the said land and accordingly, the appellants had to shift those houses for construction of road. In the refere nce court, Atowar Rahman had deposed that he purchased 9 lechas of land at villa ge Salpara Molandubi Part-I for Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only from one Bhupen Roy and had exhibited the aforesaid Sale Deed as Ext.1. From the evidence on record and the judgment rendered by the reference c 13. ourt, it would reveal that the Collector had given some compensation for zirats. But the appellants have failed to give the age, length and number of trees. Tho ugh the land was acquired in the year 1986 but the process was started in the ye ar 1981 and therefore, it was conclusively proved that there was no new plantati on or improvement on the said land after 1981 and in absence of production of th e sale deeds by the appellants, the reference court found it difficult to assess the compensation in its true perspective and thus, this Court is not inclined t o interfere with the findings arrived at by the reference court.

#14. Now, the question to be answered as to whether the appellants are entitl ed to get equal treatment in case where the reference court has granted higher c ompensation under Section 18 in excess of the amount awarded under Section 11 by the Collector to some of the claimants, whose lands were also acquired alongwit h the appellants herein vide the same Notification dated 17.7.1986. The appellan ts must be held to be the persons interested in all other lands covered by the s ame Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the amount of the comp ensation determined by the court as relatable to the land similarly situated, po ssessed of the same value or potentialities or else it would be violative of Art icle 14 of the Constitution of India.

#15. In the case in hand, the certified copy of the judgment rendered by the reference court in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 has been exhibited as Ext.2 wherei n the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twent y five thousand) only per bigha to the claimants similarly situated to that of t he appellants. But the reference court in the case of two appellants herein has declined to enhance the compensation to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) though the reference court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten t housand) only per bigha and granted all other benefits as provided under the Act . The judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 is a fact in issue is rele vant in these two appeals under the Act, inasmuch as, Section 43 of the Evidence Act provides, when the judgments are relevant in determining the case, the exis tence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant. The a ppellants have proved and exhibited the judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990 as Ext.2 which is a fact in issue and is relevant but the reference cour t did not consider the judgment rendered in Misc. LA Case No.9 of 1990. Therefor e, ordinarily the Court would have been satisfied in granting compensation to th e tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per bigha to the appell ants as they are similarly situated to those who have received the same amount a s compensation under the same notification for plots of land contiguous to the r espective appellants.

#16. However, the appellant in LA Appl No. 35/2002 has chosen to value the ap peal at Rs.22,500/- only. Similarly, the appellant in LA Appl No. 36/2002 has ch osen to value his appeal at Rs.12,000/- only. The appellants have also not filed any application for enhancing the value of their respective appeals by addition al payment of ad valorem court fees over and above what they had already paid at the time of filing of their appeals. In such circumstances, the Court is left w ith no option other than to enhance the rate of compensation from Rs.10,000/- pe r bigha to Rs.25,000/- per bigha but, at the same time, if the amounts of compe nsation payable to the appellants become higher than the amount at which the res pective appeals have been valued (i.e Rs.22,500/- for LA Appl No.35/2002 and Rs. 12,000/- for LA Appl No.36/2002), then the appellants shall be entitled only to the latter amount (i.e. the amount at which the respective appeals have been val ued and the court fees paid thereon). However, this Court is not inclined to int erfere with the other benefits rendered under the decree of the reference court. Keeping these observations in mind, the Collector, Goalpara is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation (if any) to both the appellants with interes t @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of the notification (17.07.1986) to the date of taking over possession of the land i.e. 1987. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of c ertified copy of the order rendered by this Court.

#17. With the above modifications, these two appeals are disposed of. However , in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost .

#18. Send down the lower court records.