Dipali De Majumder vs Union Of India And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5.

[2] The court, as it happens occasionally, is confronted with a queer situation. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to make payment in terms of the judgment and order dated 27.02.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) which has reached to its finality in the course of time. The said judgment as delivered in Misc (LA) 85 of 1987 arises from the Notification No.F.17(36)/ACQ/REV/76-II(Pt.II) dated 05.03.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as published in the Tripura Gazette dated 27.03.1982, whereby the petitioner's land was acquired. By the said judgment, the award has been enhanced to Rs.24,000/- per kani from Rs.15,000 per kani [as was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector].

[3] The petitioner had approached the Land Acquisition Collector (the LA Collector in short) to enhance the award in exercise of power vested with him under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the interested parties including the respondents No.1, 2 & 3. By the order dated 15.06.2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the LA Collector had passed the following order:

Dipali De Majumder is present through her advocate Smt. Krishana Majumder. The requiring department i.e. ADEO is absent despite repeated notices served on him. This is a hearing u/s28(A) of LA Act. The judgement of the writ petition No.461 of 2003) is available whereby the writ petition has been turned down by the Hon'ble High Court because LA proceeding under 28(A) have been restarted by the respondents. Therefore there is no bar on continuing u/s 28(A).

The party has claimed that the land measuring 1.51 acres in plot No.188 tilla (0.51 acre) and Plot No.194/3587 tilla (1.00 acre) of Khatian No.2047 (Rayati Smt. Dipali De Majumder W/o Ashok De Majumder of Kunjaban) was acquired for Defence establishment vide Notification in Tripura Gazette dated 13.05.1983. An award of Rs.26,047.50 was made allowing compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per kani. This amount was received by the petitioner after serving notices in form 15 (LA) from the LA Collector. Now Ld. LA Judge Vide order dated 27.02.2002 in Misc (LA) 85/87 has awarded compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per kani. The petitioner u/s 28(A) claimed that the amount of compensation due to her be determined on the basis of the Ld. LA Judge order mentioned above.

Heard and considered. The petition of Smt. Depali De Majumder, W/o Sri Ashok De Majumder is accepted and LA Section is ordered to re-calculate her award on the basis of the award of the LA Judge dated 27.02.2002. Once it has been re-calculated, the requisition for further amount may be placed to the ADEO for placement of the requisite fund.

[4] It is to be noted that LA Collector has categorically mentioned that despite the repeated notice, the requiring department i.e. ADEO (the respondent No.3 herein) never cared to participate in the hearing that took place in the proceeding drawn under Section 28A of the LA Act. The LA Collector passed the order dated 15.06.2004 by revisiting the award in terms of the said judgment dated 27.02.2002. The said order was never challenged before any forum and has reached to its finality.

[5] It appears that on 19.08.2017 by the communication No.4773.FDM/W/LAW-CELL/MISC/(LA)/U/S/28(A)/15, dated 19.08.2017, the respondent No.3, the Asstt. Defence Estates Officer (ADEO), was requested to take the necessary action for making payment to the petitioner. But, till date no such payment has been made and there is no dispute in this regard. The petitioner is entitled to get Rs.5,50,218.48 on 03.08.2017. It is needless to observe that non-payment is, in the circumstances, unacceptable.

[6] Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer has submitted that all steps are taken to realize the money for payment to the petitioner, but the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have not responded as yet.

[7] Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 has submitted that they were not given any notice before the order dated 15.06.2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was passed and as such those respondents have been denied the right of hearing and as such, the said order is not according to law. That apart, Mr. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. has submitted that no communication was received by the respondents No. 1 to 3 before the communication dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). There is no denial that in the said communication dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) entire calculation sheet showing the payable amount as on 30.08.2017 was enclosed so that the payment could be made in an early date to the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents No. 1 to 3 did not take any step for such payment. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court for direction.

[8] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously scrutinized the records, as produced before this court, this court is of the view that the respondents, particularly the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 shall deposit the entire amount as calculated by the LA Collector and as reflected in the calculation sheet enclosed along with the communication dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure-R4 to the reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3) for making payment to the respondent No. 5 within a three months from the day when those respondents shall receive a copy of this order without fail. It is needless to say that the interest from 30.08.2017 till the date of payment shall be paid as well by the respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondents No. 4 & 5 are particularly directed to make payment within seven days from the date of such deposit to the petitioner.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. for transmission to the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

No order as to costs.