Tribunals and Commissions(1999) 10 NCDRC CK 0045

ADHISHASHI ABHIYANTA vs RAJ NATH SINGH

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 5 October 1999 · Citation: 1999 3 CPJ 449 : 2000 1 CLT 242

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Bhargava , D.D.Bahuguna J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 429 words
1.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No. 940 of 1996.

2.

THE facts of the case stated in brief, as far they are relevant for deciding this appeal, are that the opposite party Public Works Department acquired some land for the State Government for construction of road. THE road has already been constructed and a Writ Petition No. 17357 of 1984 was filed before the Hon''ble High Court which was decided on 4.7.1988. Inspite of directions of Hon''ble High Court, the payment of the amount of compensation has not been made. THE complainant claims compensation for the damages to the crop and mental tension etc. The opposite party challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum and admitted construction of the road.

The learned District Forum decreed the complaint.

3.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The question involved in this case is about payment of compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Act is a special Act and it bars the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority from trying the dispute about which a relief can be claimed under that Act. The Executing Agency is the Special Land Acquisition Officer and if the Hon''ble High Court has already settled the amount of compensation, then the same has to be executed by the agency concerned and not through the District Forum by filing a separate complaint.

4.

THUS we find that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and it appears that the President and the Members of the District Forum are not conversant with the Law on the subject. Atleast the President, who is District Judge, should know provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the Executing Agency meant to redress the grievances of the persons whose land has been acquired. It appears that the learned District Judge who is working as President of District Forum has not applied his mind to the law applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the cost. Let a copy of this order be sent to the President and Members of the District Forum concerned immediately by registered post. Appeal allowed.