MADHAV KAKOTY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Ors.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

05.09.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. PP Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and Mr. NN Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019. Also heard Ms. PR Mahanta, learned counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam, Ms. M Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Revenue) Dibrugarh-cum-Competent Authority under National Highway Act, 1956 and the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh, West Revenue Circle respectively.

2. The respondents No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in WP(C)No.5223/2016 are the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.2314/2019, whereas the respondents No.5 and 6 in WP(C)No.2314/2019 are the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.5223/2016. Accordingly they are represented by their respective learned counsels.

3. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we are not required to hear the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.2314/2019 inasmuch as, Page No.# 4/7 appropriate opportunity of hearing can be given to the said respondent in the succeeding proceeding that may take place.

4. It is stated that the respondent No.6 had died in the meantime and there is an application for substitution of the legal heirs and if it is so, the legal heirs of the said respondent may be given the opportunity of hearing in the succeeding proceeding that may be initiated.

5. Both the writ petitioners in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and that of WP(C)No.2314/2019 claim ownership over a plot of land measuring 1bigha, 0 kathas and 11 lechas of patta No.34 dag No.229 (0Bigha-0Katha-12Lechas) and under Patta No.7, Dag No.236 (0Bigha-4Katha-19Lecha) of village Lepetkata Bangali Gaon, Mouza-Mankata Khanikar, District: Dibrugarh, Assam. The said plot of land had been acquired as per Notice No.D.R.A.75/2015 dated

06.01.2016 for the purpose of construction of National Highway.

6. It is an admitted stand of the parties that the land was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. As the petitioners of the two writ petitions both claim ownership right over the land, in question, which was acquired, we are of the view that a decision is required by a Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the issue as to who between the petitioner in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019 are the rightful owners of the land that had been acquired. From such point of view, the prayer made by the petitioner in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019 for a direction that the compensation amount be paid to the respective writ petitioners therein cannot be agreed upon at this stage. Page No.# 5/7

7. On the other hand, we have noticed that the prayer in WP(C)No.2314/2019 is to direct the competent authority under the National Highway Act to refer the dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 3 H (4) of the National Highway Act 1956. A reading of the provisions of Section 3 H (4) of the National Highway Act 1956 provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute for a decision by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Accordingly as there is a dispute between the petitioner in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and the petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019 as regards ownership of the land, in question, and upon determining the question of ownership, the compensation of the acquired land can be ordered, we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the competent authority under the National Highway Act 1956 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh to refer the dispute to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction.

8. It is stated by Mr. NN Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019 that the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.2314/2019 had already instituted a civil suit being T.S No.99/2018 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 at Dibrugarh also claiming ownership rights over the same acquired land. It appears that three different parties are claiming their ownership right over the same acquired land. As the respondent No.6 had already instituted a title suit claiming ownership over the same plot of land in the event of there being any reference by the competent authority pursuant to the requirement of this order to a Court of competent civil jurisdiction to Page No.# 6/7 determine as to who between the petitioner in WP(C)No.5223/2016 and the petitioner in WP(C)No.2314/2019 would be the rightful owners, the said dispute be also decided along with T.S. No.99/2018, wherein the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.2314/2019 also makes a claim towards the ownership of the land in question. Accordingly, we direct the competent authority-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to do the needful.

9. As the compensation amount has been paid by the acquiring department and is presently lying with the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, we further provide that the amount of compensation apportioned for the land involved in this writ petition, or in other words, the land involved in the claim of the aforesaid three parties be invested in a suitable fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh and whenever in future the respective claims of the parties as regards the ownership of the land is finally decided, the said amount including the interest that may accrue from such fixed deposit be paid to the appropriate party. As it is a matter for payment of land acquisition dues, we request the Court of competent civil jurisdiction to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

10. We further observe that both the Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh and the acquiring department have already provided for the amount to be paid for compensation of the acquired land, but as because of the dispute between the various persons as regards the ownership of the land, the compensation could not be paid. From such point of view, the interest at the rate of 12% provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would not be applicable in the instant case as there is no delay on the part of the authorities in making the payment and the payment has to be held back as because of the dispute between various persons claiming to be the owner of the land. Page No.# 7/7

11. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. Comparing Assistant JUDGE