High Court · 2012

Amitava Roy, J Intervention of this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdicti on has been sought for by the petitioner against the inaction on the part of the concerned State authority to forward the application under section 18 of the La nd Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short hereafter referred to a the Act) to the refe rence court for decreeing adequate amount of compensation for the land acquired in connection with LA Case No. 20/1991 of the establishment of the Collector, Ka mrup, Guwahati. We have heard Mr. A Khaleque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PS Deka , learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Government of Assam for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Ms. U Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway for the respondent No. 3. In bare essentials, the facts relevant for the present adjudication are that the petitioner’s father Bhupendra Nath Chanda (since deceased) was the owner in pos session of a plot of land measuring 4 kathas and 5 ‰ lechas covered by dag No. 2 798 of KP Patta No. 140 of Village-Maj Jalukbari in the district of Kamrup, Assa m. This land, according to the petitioner, was acquired in the aforementioned la nd acquisition case for construction of Railway B.G. Line and an amount of Rs. 8 4,987/- was paid to him, which he received under protest. The petitioner’s fathe r subsequent thereto on 10.12.1993 submitted a petition under section 18 of the Act before the Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati with a request to forward the same to the jurisdictional reference court for adjudication. The petitioner has stated that the relevant records reveal that this petition was not received by the refe rence court thereafter, for which his father addressed two reminders to the Coll ector, Kamrup for taking necessary steps. After the death of his father on 07.09 .2004, the petitioner, who was otherwise unaware of the acquisition proceedings, on 12.07.2010 while searching some documents came across the records in connect ion therewith. He, thereafter, contacted his lawyer and submitted a petition to the Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati requesting the latter to forward his father’s pe tition under section 18 of the Act to the reference court. He, having unsuccessf ully toiled on the issue with the aforementioned district authority, is before t his Court. By order dated 06.10.2010 notice of motion was issued with the observation that on the returnable date, the question of maintainability of the writ petition in view of inordinate delay and laches would be examined. Thereafter, on 27.08.2012 , the respondent No. 2, Collector, District Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati was require d to cause production of the records of LA Case No. 20/1991 along with the appli cation under section 18 of the Act said to have been filed by the petitioner’s f ather on 10.12.1993. Mr. Deka has laid before us a copy of the letter No. KRA 6/2012(Misc)/421, dated 29.08.2012 from the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Gu wahati to the effect that in spite of vigorous efforts being made, the records o f the aforementioned case could not be traced out. Whereas, Mr. Khaleque insisted that the in action on the part of the Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati to lay the application under section 18 of the Act before the j urisdictional reference court in spite of repeated requests made by the petition er’s father amounts to inexcusable failure on the part of a public authority jus tifying issuance of writ of mandamus as prayed for, the learned State Counsel ha s urged that in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in ap proaching this Court, no intervention is warranted. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted further that in any view of the matter, the petitione r’s father having accepted the compensation computed and awarded for his land as acquired, at this distant point of time, the process, which has since been clos ed 20 years back, the instant petition ought to be rejected in limine. The pleaded facts and the documents on record have been duly considered. In term s of section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referr ed by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons i nterested. This statutory provision obligates that such an application has to be made within six weeks from the date of the award, if any person making it was p resent or was represented before the Collector at the time thereof and in other cases within six weeks of the notice from the Collector, under section 12(2), or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period shall first expi re. The reference application (Annexure B to the writ petitioner) contains an averme nt of the petitioner’s father that at the time of acquiring land no notice was s erved on him and that he came to know of the acquisition only 23.11.1993. Though , this date i.e. 23.11.1993 is hand written, the date of the reference applicati on being 10.12.1993, in terms of section 18 it appears to be in time. Be that as it may, though the petitioner has averred that during the life time o f his father he had addressed two reminders to the Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati r equesting him to forward his petition under section 18 of the Act to the referen ce court, typed copies thereof, as appended to the writ petition, discloses that those are dated 16.02.1995 and 15.07.1997. The petition submitted by the petiti oner is dated 16.07.2010. It, thus evident that the petitioner’s father and ther eafter he himself, though claimed to have submitted reminders representations to the Collector, District Kamrup, Guwahati, they were visibly not prompt, vigilan t and persistent in their efforts as required. Even assuming that the applicatio n filed by the petitioner’s father was on 10.12.1993, his first reminder address ed to the Collector, District Kamrup, Guwahati was on 16.02.1995 and the one sub sequent thereto on 15.07.1997. It was almost three years thereafter that the pet itioner submitted his reminder on 16.07.2010, whereafter, eventually, he approac hed this Court on 01.10.2010. Inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner’s father thereafter by him is thu s writ large on the face of the records. Having regard to the fact that the acqu isition proceedings have been finalized since long, we are left unpersuaded by t he reasons cited by the petitioner to explain the delay in pursuing the applicat ion for reference and intervention of this Court as the ultimate measure. As it, this Court, while issuing notice of motion, had kept the issue of maintainabili ty of the instant petition open on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of th e case, no intervention at this distant point of time is warranted. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.