Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur vs Shri Maithem Deben Singh on 16 March, 2022
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
DB Item No. 50
Date: 2022.03.16
VICTORIA 15:35:26 +05'30' (Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 11 of 2019
1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur - 795001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Land Acquisition,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.
3. The Director of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government
of Manipur - 795001.
...Appellants
- Versus -
1. Shri Maithem Deben Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o M.
Munal Singh of Ningombam Atom, P.O. Canchipur and P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District and at present residing at
Ghari Awang Leikai, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795140.
2. Shri Shadokpam Shurjit Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o (L)
Sh. Yaima Singh of Ningombam Awang, P.O. Canchipur,
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District and at present residing
at Lanthabal Lep Heiribok Chingya, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795003.
3. Sairem Subadani Devi, aged about 59 years, W/o Akoijam
Kanglemba Singh of Ningombam Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur and P.S. Singjamei and at present residing at
Ghari Awang Leikai, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795140.
4. Akoijam Thasana Devi, aged about 37 years, D/o Akoijam
Kanglemba Singh of Ningombam Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur and P.S. Singjamei and at present residing at
Ghari Awang Leikai, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795140.
5. Th. Prasantajit Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o (L) Th.
Munindrakumar Singh of Keishamthong Moirangningthou
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001.
...Respondents
Page 1 of 6
B EF O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the appellants ∷ Mr. N. Kumarjit, AG, Manipur
For the respondents ∷ Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate
Date of reserving Judgment ∷ 14-03-2022
Date of Judgment ∷ 16-03-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.),
[1] The State of Manipur and its authorities in the Revenue, Land
Acquisition and Horticulture Departments are in appeal, aggrieved by the
Judgment and Order dated 20-09-2018 passed by a learned Judge of this
Court in WP(C) No. 306 of 2017. By the said order, the learned Judge
allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated
04-05-2015 and 22-05-2015.
[2] Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur,
appearing for the appellants; and Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the respondents.
[3] Facts
relevant to this adjudication fall in a narrow compass. The
lands of the respondents were acquired by the State for expansion of the
Imphal Tulihal Airport. The Award fixing the compensation therefor under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1894'), was passed
on 21-02-2009. This Award pertained to the compensation payable for the
lands only and indicated that a separate statement for the compensation
payable for standing properties would be issued thereafter. Accordingly,
Addendum dated 27-11-2010 was issued by the DC/Collector, Land
Acquisition, Imphal West District, quantifying the compensation payable for
supplementary standing properties, i.e., buildings, forests, standing crops,
fish farms, etc. However, it appears that a resurvey was undertaken after
considerable time leading to the issuance of Order dated 04-05-2015 by the
Under Secretary, Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Government
of Manipur, cancelling all earlier and latest survey/assessment reports,
including the claims for compensation, etc. with immediate effect in public
interest. This order recorded that the initial reports had concealed the actual
facts and there were no floriculture farms, green houses/shade nets,
Mushroom Units, buildings, forests, fish farms, etc. in existence. Pursuant
thereto, the DC/Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal West, issued order dated
22-05-2015 cancelling the Addendum dated 27-11-2010.
[4] These two orders were subjected to challenge in the writ petition.
Upon consideration of factual and legal aspects, the learned Judge held that
it was doubtful whether cancellation of the Addendum could be done at all
by the Government. The learned Judge further held that the failure to put the
affected persons on notice rendered the entire exercise, be it the resurvey
or the cancellation of the Addendum, in violation of the principles of natural
justice and the prescribed procedure. The learned Judge further held that
the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for brevity 'the Act of 1897), would not be
applicable to proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 and an Award
made thereunder. It was on these grounds that the learned Judge set aside
both the impugned orders and held that the respondents herein were entitled
to the compensation awarded to them under the Addendum dated
27-11-2010.
[5] Before proceeding to the legal issue, certain crucial facts may be
noted. The subject land acquisition dates back to January, 2009, and
possession of the acquired lands was taken under Section 7 of the Act of
1894 at that time itself. The Award fixing the compensation for the lands was
passed on 21-02-2009. The Addendum quantifying the compensation for
standing properties was issued on 27-11-2010. The resurvey appears to
have been undertaken more than two years after possession of the lands
was taken by the State. Significantly, the orders based thereon, including
the cancellation of the Addendum, were passed much later, i.e., in May,
2015. At no point of time, be it during the resurvey or the exercise of
cancelling the Addendum, were the respondents put on notice.
[6] That apart, the scheme of the Act of 1894 does not vest the land
acquisition authorities with any power of review, whereby they could have
undertaken such an exercise in the context of the Addendum dated
27-11-2010, which was in the nature of a supplementary Award. On the
other hand, Section 12(1) of the Act of 1894 posits that the Award, once
passed, attains finality and it is not open to even the Land Acquisition
Collector to tamper with it, except to the limited extent permitted under
Section 13A of the Act of 1894. Section 13A provides that the Collector, after
passing the Award, has the power to correct only clerical/arithmetical errors
therein and that too, before the expiry of six months from the date of the
Award. Even such errors cannot be corrected without putting a person, who
would be prejudicially affected thereby, on notice and giving him a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation.
[7] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, would contend that
notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1894, Section 21 of the Act of
1897 would come to the aid of the authorities and empower them to cancel
an Award or an Addendum Award passed under the Act of 1894. It may
however be noted that Section 21 of the Act of 1897 states that the general
power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws under a Central Act
would include the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind them also.
However, this provision does not mention an 'Award', relatable to the Act of
1894, and speaks only of notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws issued
under a Central Act. The nature of an Award under the Act of 1894 is entirely
different from 'notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws' referred to in Section
21 of the Act of 1897, as it is in the nature of a decision arrived at after
hearing all the parties concerned. It would therefore not be open to the
authorities to bank upon this general provision to assume the power of
review in the context of an Award passed under the Act of 1894. Further, a
general provision cannot prevail over a special legislation, viz., the Act of
1894, which embodies a complete and comprehensive scheme for dealing
with all issues relating to land acquisition.
[8] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, would point out that the
Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the finality of Awards under the
Act of 1894 in Kothamasu Kanakarathamma and others vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others [AIR 1965 SC 304]. Therein, the Supreme
Court observed that the only manner in which the finality of the Award of the
Land Acquisition Officer can be called in question is by resort to Section 18
of the Act of 1894. It was further observed that, as per Section 12(1) of the
Act of 1894, once the Award is filed in the Collector's Office, it shall be final
and conclusive evidence between the Collector and the persons interested
as regards the area/value of the land and apportionment of compensation.
[9] On the above analysis, we find that the learned Judge was
absolutely correct and justified in setting aside the impugned orders passed
in May, 2015. Neither the Government nor the Collector had any power to
cancel the basis for an Award already passed or cancel an Award or an
Addendum to an Award. The orders to that effect therefore beseeched
invalidation.
[10] The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through Whatsapp
to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Victoria
