High Court · 2009

The respondent herein had the occasion to approach this Court along with five others by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4034/2002 making a gr ievance against his eviction from the land in question. He was not only evicted from the land, but his Assam Type building standing thereon was also demolished. While it was the case of the State Govt. in the Forest Department that the land in question was a forest land and thus could not have been occupied by the resp ondent and others, it was the case of the respondent that the land is an annual patta land and beyond the particular reserved forest. The Court found that the l and was not a forest land as clarified by the Revenue Department. That being the position, the action of the Forest Department in evicting the persons concerned including the respondent was held to be illegal, arbitrary and without any auth ority of law. Having regard to the fact that the respondent along with others ha d suffered loss due to such eviction and demolition of their houses, the writ Co urt issued the direction as follows: (cid:28)16. The petitioners though have prayed for compensation for the loss suffered b y them, in absence of adequate materials on record, I am not inclined to adjudic ate the said claim. The petitioners may approach the authorities concerned for p roviding them appropriate compensation for the loss. Needless to say if the peti tioners register such claim and place adequate materials in support thereof, the concerned authorities would consider the same in accordance with law and take a n appropriate decision thereon. 17. With the above directions and observations, the petition stands closed. (cid:29)

3. After the aforesaid judgment and order with the aforesaid direction con tained therein, the respondent made an application detailing the facts leading t o the loss sustained and caused to him due to the unauthorized eviction. Such application was made on 05.07.04 and was inclusive of all the documents such as building permission, Telephone and electricity connection, land revenue paying r eceipts, deed of tenancy agreement, photographs demonstrating the extent of dama ges caused by the illegal eviction and demolition of the house, the valuation re port of the property etc.

4. atements. In paragraph 19 of the application, the respondent made the following st (cid:28)19. That the applicant begs to state that as has been declared by the Hon’ble H igh Court , due to the illegal and arbitrary action of the Forest Department, Go vt. of Assam, the applicant had to sustain loss of his valuable property as fore said and the same can be quantified as follows: a. Demolition of house b. Household articles c. Boudnary wall (20mt X 5 (cid:29)) d. Iron gate with RCC post Rs. 8,52,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 10,000/- e. Water Tank f. Electrical wring g. House Rent incurred after demolition Rs. 5,000/- Rs 25,000/- w.e.f. 01.06.02 to 31.05.04 (@ Rs. 2,400/- per month) Rs. 57,600/- ------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. 11,29,600/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred) Only (cid:29) On the basis of the application so filed by the respondent, the matter r 5. elating to compensation payable to him was processed at different levels in the concerned Departments of the Govt. After obtaining the opinion/ reports etc., t he Govt. decided to pay the compensation to the respondent amounting to Rs. 11,2 9,600/-. All these facts have been discussed in the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.08.

6. When the matter rested thus, the Govt. of Assam in the Environment and F orest Department intimated the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Ass am by its communication dated 04.01.06 about the decision to keep the claim of t he respondent in abeyance. Such a course of action was adopted raising the issu e as to whether the land in question is a myadi patta land or annual patta land. Being aggrieved by such decision, the respondent filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 357/2006 challenging the legality of the aforesaid letter. It was hi s contention that since the matter was processed at different levels in various departments and a final decision was taken to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11 ,29,600/- as the compensation amount, there could not have been any occasion to keep the matter in abeyance as per the whims and caprices of the Govt. in the Fo rest Department. Be it stated here that it is the Forest Department at whose ins tance, the respondent was evicted from the land and his house was demolished.

7. The learned Single Judge considering the matter in its entirety and also having regard to the earlier round of litigation in which the matter relating t o the status of the land attained its finality, while interfering with the said communication dated 04.01.06 also issued direction for payment of the compensati on amount within three months. Being aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal. We have been informed that 50% of the compensation amount has been paid to the respondent/writ petitioner.

8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr . B. Kashyap, Advocate referring to the provisions of the Assam Land Revenue Reg ulation 1886 and Settlement Rules framed thereunder, submitted that valuation of the land was improperly assessed and that having regard to the status of the l and, the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to the compensation assessed . Referring to the records produced by him, he submitted that as per the own ev aluation report submitted by the respondent, his claim stood at Rs. 8,52,000/-. Be it stated here that the evaluation report also indicates valuation of the lan d at Rs. 4,20,000/-. However, it does not take care of other items as specified in paragraph 19 of the application refund to above.

9. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. De, learn ed counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/ respondent submitted that the matt er relating to the status of the land having attained its finality in the earlie r round of litigation, the State cannot be permitted to reopen the issue. As re gards the assessment of the compensation at Rs. 11,29,600/-, he submitted that s uch assessment having been made excluding the evaluation of the land, the conten tion raised by the appellants on that count is not sustainable. .

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the p arties. We have also gone through the entire records produced by the State appel lants. On perusal of the same, what has transpired is that, while assessing the compensation amount payable to the writ petitioner/ respondent, the value of th e land was never taken into consideration. Although Mr. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submitted that as per the own evaluation report submitt ed by the petitioner, as against the value of the building/house, shown as Rs. 8,52,000/-, the value of the land has been shown as Rs. 4,20,000/-. According t o him the compensation amount came to be assed at Rs. 11,29,600/- only because the value of the land was shown as Rs. 4,20,000/- and that such valuation was al so taken into account towards assessing the compensation amount. We have already indicated the claim made by the writ petitioner/responde 11. nt in his application dated 05.07.04. No claim was made by the respondent/ writ petitioner in respect of the land. While the compensation payable on account of demolition of the house was assessed at Rs. 8,52,000/-, other assessments were on account of other incidental losses suffered by the respondent/ writ petitio ner due to such demolition. It was on that basis, the total compensation amoun t payable to the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 11,29,600/-. Such compensation w as assessed by the departmental authorities and also as indicated above, was app roved at different levels including the Forest Department which after finalizati on of the matter issued the Annexure-6 impugned letter dated 04.01.06 directing the PCCF, Assam to keep the matter in abeyance.

12. Learned Single Judge taking into account all aspects of the matter discu ssed above, has come to the conclusion that the State respondents after taking t he decision on the basis of the opinion/ reports etc. to pay the compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 11,29,600/-, could not have turned round the s ame so as to contend that having regard to the status of the land, the petitione r was not entitled to such compensation. By the impugned letter while keeping th e matter in abeyance it was also observed that the petitioner would require to f ile further documents. The petitioner along with his application dated 05.07.04 had submitted all the required documents about which mention has been made above . It is on that basis the matter relating to payment of compensation to him was finalized. Nowhere in the process of finalization of the question of payment of compensation to the petitioner the value of the land was taken into account. Sam e was also not the issue. The issue was as to whether the petitioner would be en titled to the compensation for wrongful eviction and demolition of his house. W hen it was found that the petitioner was wrongly evicted and his house was wrong ly demolished, which naturally destroyed the fixtures and furniture including t he electricity and telephone installation, boundary wall etc., the learned Singl e Judge in the earlier round of litigation, in absence of detailed particulars relating to the extent of damage caused, left the matter open to the authority t o decide as to what would be the adequate compensation.

13. Based on the materials supplied by the petitioner and the verification t hereof made by the authorities of the State Govt. including its own opinion and reports etc., the aforesaid amount was assessed to be adequate compensation pay able to the petitioner. However, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matte r in abeyance till the time the petitioner would provide other documents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury, Addl. Advocate General submitted that sin ce the petitioner could not provide any documents relating to his title over the land, the matter was kept in abeyance. As indicated above, the status of the land occupied by the petitioner wa 14. s not decisive of compensation payable to him. Once it was held that the land is not forest land and the petitioner was wrongly evicted from the land and his ho use standing thereon was wrongly demolished, all that was required of the State respondents was to assess the extent of damage caused to the property of the pe titioner and to pay compensation on that basis. The said exercise was duly carri ed out by the appellants and the amount was ready to be paid. It was at that st age, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance asking the pet itioner to produce more documents not relating to the issue involved.

15. Learned Single Judge taking note of all the aforesaid facts, has rightly interfered with the impugned Annexure -6 letter dated 04.01.2006 and we see no reason to interfere with the said decision of the leaned Single Judge.

16. it appeal is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal fails. Accordingly the wr