The Manipur High Court has observed that State Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained code and the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction beyond the prescribed manner specified in the Act.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh thus dismissed a application filed under the Act.
Facts of the Case:
The present case pertains to a disputed land which was acquired by the Assam Rifles under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The land was partitioned between the respondent and the applicant, who claims that she was not impleaded as an interested party to the award of the compensation passed by the Collector. To that, the respondent claims that several opportunities were given at different point of time during the proceedings of the land acquisition process and passing of the award, however, the applicant remained silent for about 4 years and did not submit any objection. Now that the process has been completed, the applicant is claiming to be an interested party in the land acquisition proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that ‘the Act’ is a self-contained code and provides for the mode and manner in which an application for reference by a person dissatisfied therewith is to be made. Section 64 of ‘the
Act’ restricts a person who was not a party to the proceedings (before the Collector) from praying for a reference. Since the applicant raised an application about her rights over the land and not the quantum of the compensation, the court merely in the capacity of a ‘reference court’ could not exercise its original jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed on the case of Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf v. Syed Zindasha and it was held that since the applicant did not make any such claim before the Collector and since such
claim/objection had not been included in the reference made by the Collector, consideration of such claim by this Court in the present appeal is not permissible under law.
Further, relying on the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai Vs M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2010 Latest Caselaw 821 SC, the court observed that the period of limitation as given in ‘the Act’ applies and in the present case, the applicant failed to give any reason for her inability to appear or make any claim/objection before the Collector during the land acquisition proceedings and also the delay in approaching the court.
The Court dismissed the application on account of lack of merit.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
