AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred before this Court for a direction to issue to the Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai to dispose of the claim petitions filed by the petitioners and other analogous cases expeditiously preferably within a time frame.
The brief facts of the case is that by notification dated 28.01.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the land of the petitioner and others situated in West Jaintia Hills District was notified for acquisition for construction of the Kupli Hydel Project at Saphai village, Elaka Raliang, Jaintia Hills District by the respondent No. 2/NEEPCO.
The further case of the petitioner is thereafter on the dissatisfaction with the assessment of compensation, applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were filed before the District Collector who however did not refer the applications to the Court of the Special Judicial Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong. It was only after the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had issued directions vide order dated 06.05.02 passed in WP (C) 116(SH) of 2002 that the matter was placed before the Reference Court. Further case is that the petitioners filed their respective claim petitions in the year 2002 and around 303 analogous cases have since been registered in the Court of Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai which are still pending disposal.
I have heard Mr. J. Shylla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. Sen, learned senior GA on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Marwein, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Mr. J. Shylla, learned counsel has submitted that though, the land of the petitioner has been taken over two decades ago, they are yet to be afforded equitable and reasonable compensation. He submits that at the time of acquisition, the acquired land had been classified into three categories namely, Arable Land, Wet Paddy Land and Dry Paddy Land with the rate of compensation being assessed at Rs. 14.50 per Sq mtrs for Arable Land, Rs. 19 per Sq mtrs for Wet Paddy Land and Rs. 16 per Sq mtrs for Dry Paddy Land.
Learned counsel submits that an attempt has been made to settle the matter out of Court and draws the attention of the court to Annexure 5 of the petition which is the record of proceedings dated 16.02.2012, wherein a settlement rate had been proposed for an out of court settlement in a meeting wherein all the parties were present and the rates were as follows: Arable Land to be increased from Rs. 14.50 per Sq mtrs to Rs. 21.75 per Sq mtrs, Dry Paddy Land to be increased from Rs. 16 per Sq mtrs to Rs. 24 per Sq mtrs and Wet Paddy Land to be increased from Rs. 19 per Sq mtrs to Rs. 28.50 per Sq mtrs. He submits that however; the settlement was not implemented as mooted and noted in the said proceedings.
He further submits that on these broad three classifications of the acquired land, the enhancement of the rate of compensation can be arrived at, and further submits that such rates arrived at in these three categories will be applicable to the entire land acquired, as such, eliminating the necessity of a long drawn process to examine all the claims individually.
In this regard the learned counsel reads Section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Land Act, 1894, which is quoted herein below:
"[28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.-(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.]"
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 with the relevant paragraphs being para-6, 7 and 8 which deals with the purpose and objective behind Section 28 (A).
In conclusion, the learned counsel prays that suitable directions be passed by this Court to direct the Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai to expedite the matter as the same has remained pending for over 18 years in court in, firstly in coming to the rate of enhancement and secondly, to take up the issue of disbursement of the claim amongst the rightful claimants.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 30.01.2020, directing the respondent No. 2 to examine the possibility of facilitating an out of Court settlement has produced a note sheet from the record file of the respondent No. 2, wherein it has been categorically expressed and recorded that an out of Court settlement is not feasible and cannot be entered into as NEEPCO is a Central Government Public Sector undertaking and will be guided by the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
As such, Learned senior counsel expressed his inability to use his good offices in this regard, but submits that he has no objection if the matter is directed to be completed within prescribed period.
Mr. S. Sen, learned senior GA on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has also submitted that other ancillary questions such as substitutions for the claimants who have expired should also be taken into consideration while deciding the claim petitions, inasmuch as, 35 claimants has since expired and substitution applications are pending.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and also examined the materials on record. The fact as it stands is that these matters are pending in Court for over 18 years without any hope of an early conclusion, which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Admittedly, the matter involves various factual aspects which has to be decided before any final conclusion can be arrived at, which will invariably take time, but the same cannot be a reason to keep the matters pending with no end in sight. Therefore, in consideration, of the facts and circumstances of the case thereof, it is directed that the Special Judicial Officer, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai take up the matters and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within the current calendar year (2020).
Needless to say, the parties are at liberty to raise any issue or any points that may be deemed necessary for adjudication of the matter such as the application of Section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is further directed that all parties concerned are to co-operate fully to ensure the speedy disposal of these long pending matters.
With the above noted directions, the revision petition is accordingly disposed of.