High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1835/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI THE HON’BLE DR. (MRS) JUSTICE I SHAH (Vaiphei, J) This writ petition was directed against the eviction notice dated 24-03- 2011, issued by the Circle Officer, Sidli Revenue Circle, Sidli (Respondent No.4 ) directing the 18 petitioners to vacate within 20-04-2011 the land occupied by them for construction of 4-lane NH-31 of village-Chatipurgaon and Bortalowa unde r Sidli Revenue Circle in the district of Chirang.
Legal Reasoning
4. There is no dispute at the bar that the corrigendum was never published in two local newspapers, one of which should be in vernicular language, which is the mandate of Section 3-A of the Act. The corrigendum dated 12-03-2013 appears to be too late and too little. Such publication is important: this will enable the persons interested in the land an opportunity to file objection against the proposed acquisition and to avail of their right to be heard on their objection s under Section 3-C of the Act. The respondents have correspondingly the duty t o hear the objections of the petitioners lon the proposed acquisition of the lan d objections together with a certified copy of this order, if so advised, agains t the proposed acquisition of the land occupied by them before the competent aut hority constituted under Section 3(a) of the Act within 21 days from today and t he Competent authority shall thereafter hear the petitioners and take a decision thereon in accordance with the Act within a period of two weeks. It shall also be open to the petitioners to claim that they have never received the compensati on payable to them (Zirat) and if such claim is made, the competent authority wi ll make an inquiry into the genuineness such claim. Till disposal of the objecti on, the eviction notice shall not be carried out by the respondents.
Arguments
2. The case of the petitioners is that the land described in Schedule ’A’ h as been under their occupation for about 30 years by constructing the stall hous es thereon. To cut the story short, according to them, they have been running t he business of groceries, pharmacies, tea stalls, readymade Clothes, tailorings, shoe houses and bakeries etc. on those stalls. When the impugned notice was iss ued, they approached this Court in WP(C) No.2134/11 (not the first time), and th is Court by the order dated 18-04-2011 issued an interim order staying the retur nable date. On 21-10-2011, when the case was came up for further proceeding, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, on the basis of the affidavit-in-oppos ition so filed, brought to the notice of this Court that the Deputy Commissioner , Chirang in the year 2005 had acquired the land in question whereafter the lear ned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was allowed to withdraw the writ p etition with a liberty to file a fresh case vide the order dated 21-10-2011. Th e petitioners thereafter filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Deputy Commissioner seeking details about the aforesaid land acquisi tion. The Deputy Commissioner, Chirang vide his letter dated 2-11-2011 informed the petitioners that as Chirang District had become a part of Bodo Territorial Council (BTC), all the related documents/particulars had been handed over to the BTC. This again prompted the petitioners to file another writ petition being WP (C) No.6547/11, and this Court by the interim order dated 21-11-2011 had passed an interim order to the effect that the respondents might proceed with the widen ing of the National Highways as required irrespective of whether any of the land s belonging to the petitioners were within the notified lands but which belonged to the petitioners, such lands will not be disturbed by the authorities. Subseq uently, in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, the notificati on dated 1-1-2009 as Annexure-1, Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 respectively were ann exed. In the light of this development, the petitioners prayed for and were allo wed by this Court to withdraw their writ petition with a liberty to re-file a fr esh case vide the order dated 7-3-2013. Contending that the land acquisition pro ceedings revealed by the aforesaid notifications were undertaken without complyi ng with the provisions of Sections 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-G and 3-H of the Act, they a re now filing this writ petition by questioning the legality of the impugned evi ction notice. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, realising the mistake committ ed by them in the aforesaid notification dated 1-1-2009, the respondent authorit ies issued the corrigendum dated 12-03-2013 (Annexure-4) indicating that the lan d being acquired was covered by Dag No. 165 (Sarkari land) with an area of 0.01 hectare and not by Patta No.165 at page 33 of the notification vide Column No.5. In order opinion, in view of this notification, the grievance of the petitione rs that the land being acquired had been wrongly mentioned as Patta land and not as Dag/Sarkari land, has now been redressed by the respondent authorities. It is, however, submitted by Mr. MA Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners , that it is only after this corrigendum, which surfaced only when the responden ts filed their affidavit-in-opposition, that the petitioners realized that their lands were being acquired without payment of compensation of Zirat value and wi thout giving them an opportunity to make objection of the proposed acquisition o f their lands under Section 3. He submits that the corrigendum was not even publ ished in two local newspapers as required by Section 3-A of the National Highway s Act, 1956 ( (cid:28)the Act (cid:29)), and that as the exercise of the land acquisition procee ding had been carried out without their knowledge, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, and the impugned eviction notice sought to b e carried out against them in violation of the provisions of the Act is liable t o be quashed. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner s, Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel for the BTC, maintains that the p etitioners not only knew that their lands are being acquired but they have also received the compensation (Zirat) payable to them and that the petitioners are s imply interested in the stalling the land acquisition: public project of nationa l importance has been put on hold for years and years altogether due to frivolou s by the petitioners against the respondents. He, therefore, strenuously urges t his Court to dismiss the writ petition.