Gauhati High Court
Sudha Jain vs The State Of Assam And 16 Ors on 20 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010187822023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No.: WP(C)/7846/2017
SUDHA JAIN
W/O. MR. MAHABIR PRASAD JAIN
R/O. RAJLAXMI APARTMENT
DANISH ROAD
PANBAZAR
P.O. and P.S. PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 16 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-781006.
2:THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-781006.
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP
AMINGAON
ASSAM.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
PALASHBARI REVENUE CIRCLE
MIRZA
Page No.# 2/11
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
5:SRI JAGADHAR CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. GUNADHAR CHOUDHURY
VILL. GORABARI
P.O. MONIARI TINIALI
P.S. PALASBARI
MOUZA- CHAYANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
6:SRI HEMADHAR CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. GUNADHAR CHOUDHURY
VILL. GORABARI
P.O. MONIARI TINIALI
P.S. PALASBARI
MOUZA- CHAYANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
7:SRI SUKURA BORO
S/O. LT. MANJURA BORO
VILL. SONTOLA
P.S. PALASBARI
MOUZA- CHAYANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
8:SRI DIPAK BORO
S/O. LT. SUREN BORO
R/O. SONTOLA
P.S. PALASBARI
MOUZA- CHAYANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
9:PADMA NATH
S/O. LT. GERO NATH
10:SMT. DIPALI NATH
W/O. LT. MADHAB NATH
11:SRI AMRIT NATH
S/O. LT. RABIRAM NATH
Page No.# 3/11
12:SRI PRABIN NATH
S/O. LT. RABIRAM NATH
13:SMT. ANU BORO
W/O. LT. BHEBO BORO
14:SRI BHADRESWAR BORO
S/O. LT. BHEBO BORO
15:SRI DHIREN BORO
S/O. LT. BHEBO BORO
16:SRI KIRAN BORO
S/O. LT. BHEBO BORO
17:SRI HIREN BORO
S/O. LT. BHEBO BORO
NO. 9 TO 17 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. SONTOLA
P.S. PALASBARI
MOUZA- CHAYANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M. Hazariak, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. N. Begum, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 20.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 20.09.2023
Page No.# 4/11
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup,
Amingaon whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon passed
an order that the ryots would also be entitled to a part of the
compensation in respect to LA Case No.11/2012.
2. The facts involved in the instant case in brief are that one Shri
Jagadhar Choudhury and Shri Hemadhar Choudhury were the original
owners and Pattadars of agricultural lands measuring 19 bighas, 3 Kathas
6 Lechas covered by Dag Nos.108 and 109 of N.K. Patta No.6 of Maliata
Revenue Village under Palashbari Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup,
Assam.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that there were seven
occupancy tenants who used to cultivate their lands earlier under the
respondent Nos.5 & 6 were issued the Khatian No.43. Subsequent to the
change of the character of the land and as the land became not suitable
for agriculture purposes, there was no further cultivation over the said
land by the said occupancy tenants. It is the further case of the petitioner
that the respondent No.7 had executed a Deed of Relinquishment in
favour of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 whereby the possession of 7 bighas
out of 20 bighas of land covered by Dag No.108 of Patta No.6 (vide
Khatian No.43, situated at village Maliata Revenue Village, Mouza-Chayani
under Palashbari Revenue Circle) was handed over to the respondent
Nos.5 & 6. This registered Deed of Relinquishment was executed on
Page No.# 5/11
16.02.2008, and thereupon, the petitioner purchased the said land vide
the registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.5220/2008 dated
31.03.2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent
Nos.8, 9 to 12 and 13 to 17 all executed the Deed of Relinquishment in
favour of the respondent Nos.5 & 6, and thereupon, the respondent Nos.5
& 6 vide various Deeds of Sale bearing Deed No.5370/2008 dated
05.04.2008, Deed No.5426/2008 dated 07.04.2008 and Deed
No.5281/2008 dated 04.04.2008 transferred the said land mentioned
therein to the petitioner.
4. In the backdrop of the above, this Court further finds it relevant to
take into account the dispute involved herein. A land acquisition
proceedings was initiated for acquisition of land measuring 19 bighas 3
Kathas 6 Lechas for establishment of IIT at village - Maliata under
Palasbari Revenue Circle. The said land acquisition proceedings, as per the
petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Deputy
Commissioner, was done so in terms with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. After the enquiry so conducted by the Deputy
Commissioner, the petitioner received the notice dated 03.06.2017 issued
by the respondent No.3 regarding the payment of compensation of land.
In the said notice, it was mentioned that 1/4 th of the said compensation
shall be paid to the seven numbers of tenants whose names were
recorded as per the report of the respondent No.4. It is relevant to
mention that prior to the issuance of the notice dated 03.06.2017, the
petitioner submitted objection to the Deputy Commissioner (Land
Acquisition Branch) on 08.06.2016 which was followed by another
objection dated 15.06.2016 objecting to the payment of any part of the
Page No.# 6/11
compensation to the tenants on the ground that the tenants have already
relinquished their rights over the land in question. Further to that, the
petitioner has issued another communication to the Additional Deputy
Commissioner (Land Acquisition Branch) on 19.06.2017 requesting that
the said payment should not be made to the seven tenants as they have
already relinquished their rights in favour of the predecessors-in-interest
of the petitioner, i.e. the respondent Nos.5 & 6. Inspite of the said
objection being filed, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon
passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 whereby it was decided that
the amount Rs.41,87,580/- would be paid to the seven tenants and the
remaining amount would be paid to the petitioner. It is, however, relevant
to mention that as per the impugned order dated 17.10.2020, the
petitioner was held to be entitled to Rs.1,25,62, 740/-. The petitioner
being aggrieved has assailed the impugned order by way of the present
writ petition.
5. I have perused the materials on record and also heard the learned
counsels for the parties. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner submitted by drawing the reference to the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and more particularly, to Section 18 as well as
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wherein it has been
stipulated that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same
or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part
thereof, is payable, the Collector is statutorily bound to refer such dispute
to the decision of the Court. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup, Amingaon on his own could not have passed the said order dated
Page No.# 7/11
17.10.2017, and as such, the said order is without authority and
jurisdiction. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that he has no instructions as to whether the
petitioner has already received the amount of Rs.1,25,62,740/- which is
3/4th of the total compensation awarded in respect to the land.
6. Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon submits with due fairness that the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon instead of passing the
impugned order ought to have referred the matter to the Court, i.e. the
Court of the District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon to adjudicate on the issue
pertaining to the apportionment of the compensation.
7. Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondents including the newly impleaded respondents submitted that
the said relinquishment deeds are fake and also had no sanctity in the
eyes of law taking into account that as per the provisions of the Assam
(Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, a relinquishment cannot be
made by occupancy tenants in favour of any other person except the
Government. The learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.7 to 22,
however, submits that the entitlement of the private respondents are
limited to 1/4th shares of the amount which has been granted by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon vide the impugned order.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties this Court finds it
relevant to take note of three provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
First, is Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which stipulates that
any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written
Page No.# 8/11
application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred 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
person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation
amongst the persons interested. The second provision which also requires
to be taken note of is Section 30 of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894
which stipulates that when the amount of compensation has been settled
under Section 11 and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the
same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the
decision of the Court. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of
another provisions, i.e. Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
which stipulates inter-alia that if there be any dispute as to the title to
receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector
shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be
submitted.
9. In the instant case, the dispute only arises as to whether the private
respondent Nos.7 to 22 herein would be entitled to 1/4 th share of the
compensation in LA Case No.11/2012 which has been adjudged by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Amingaon in terms with the impugned
order dated 17.10.2017. The record further shows that the petitioner
during the enquiry proceedings had submitted objection to the fact that
the private respondents or their predecessors-in-interest would not be
entitled to any compensation. Be that as it may, vide the notice dated
03.06.2017, the petitioner has been informed that there are seven
Page No.# 9/11
recorded tenants and the petitioner was asked to submit the original
copies of the relinquishment deeds. The petitioner thereupon on
19.06.2017 submitted a communication to the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon (Land Acquisition Branch) stating inter-
alia that the private respondent Nos.7 to 22 or their predecessors would
not be entitled to the 1/4th of the compensation in respect of the land
acquired vide LA Case No.11/2012. It is seen that thereupon vide the
impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon adjudged
that the private respondents herein/their predecessors-in-interest would
be entitled to 1/4th of the compensation, i.e. Rs.41,87,580/-. It is not
known as to whether the petitioner thereupon approached the respondent
authorities for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in as much as the petitioner thereupon immediately
approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
10. Taking into account the provisions of Sections 18, 30 and 31 (2) of
the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the question as to whether the private
respondents or their predecessors-in-interest had relinquished their rights
or could have relinquished their rights are questions of facts which can
only be adjudicated upon by a Reference Court, it would not be proper on
the part of this Court to decide the said dispute which had arisen in the
instant writ petition. This Court, therefore, grants the liberty to the
petitioner to file an application within six weeks from today seeking
reference to the Court the dispute as to whether the private respondents
herein would entitled to 1/4th of the compensation in respect to LA Case
No.11/2012. For the sake of clarity, this Court makes it clear that the six
weeks would expire on 02.11.2023.
Page No.# 10/11
11. This Court further observes and directs that if such application is
filed within the said period as aforesaid, the Collector-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon shall refer the said dispute to the Court
of the District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon forthwith.
12. It is also made clear that if the application is not filed within the
stipulated period, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon shall take
effective steps for disbursement of the amount to the private respondents
herein.
13. This Court further taking into consideration that there is no dispute
as regards 3/4th of the compensation which as per the impugned order
dated 17.10.2017 is Rs.1,25,62,740/-, the same be disbursed to the
petitioner within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the instant order, if not already disbursed. The acceptance of the
said amount by the petitioner would not prejudice the petitioner in the
Reference Proceedings, if initiated as per the liberty given herein above.
14. This Court further directs the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup,
Amingaon that no amount be released to the private respondents till the
expiry of the period granted to the petitioner for filing the application
seeking reference. If the petitioner file the said application within the time
stipulated, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon while making the
reference under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall deposit
the said amount to the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in
terms with Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
entitlement in respect to the said amount thereafter shall be subject the
decision so passed by the Reference Court.
Page No.# 11/11
15. In view of the above observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
