AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Paul as well as learned State counsel, Mr. R.Gurung, on behalf of the respondent No.2.
The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that:
The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a plot of land measuring about 49,222 sq.ft. situated at Baridua, Raid-Marwet
Mylliem Syiemship, Ri-Bhoi District Meghalaya. Out of the said plot of land a portion of land measuring about 318.6 sq.mts. was
acquired by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Meghalaya for construction of the four laning of
N.H.-37 (from Khanapara to Jorabat). The Collector for acquiring the said plot of land had awarded a sum of Rs. 9,06,047/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs, Six thousand and forty seven) as compensation. However the respondent No. 1 raised an objection to the
compensation being awarded to the petitioner herein and a reference under Section 30 was made by the Collector to the Special
Judicial Officer, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh. The Special Judicial Officer, even while the reference was made under section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the issue of enhancement was neither raised not argued upon and agreed by the petitioner, have
passed an Order therein wrongly observing that the petitioner did not want any enhancement and erroneously imposed a condition
upon the petitioner to sign an undertaking to refund the awarded amount in the event if any claim in future came from the respondent
No.1 for claiming the amount even though the law does not stipulates such undertaking while claiming the compensation.
Being highly aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Learned Special Judicial Officer, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, in
Land Acquisition Case No. 14(B) of 2006, renumbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 137 of 2015 in absolute non application of
judicious mind, the humble petitioner is before this Hon''ble Court for redressal of her genuine grievances.
Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s land was acquired by the government in the year 2006 and
compensation was determined but petitioner did not receive any money. Learned counsel further contended that there was a title dispute between
the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the title suit was pending before the Court of Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner at Nongpoh which was
finally decreed in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was then evicted and removed from the place. Thereafter, a petition was moved for
reference of the subject matter i.e. land acquisition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Unfortunately, the Learned Special Court of Land Acquisition instead of settling the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, dealt
the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, this petition before this Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R.Gurung agreed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
After hearing the submissions made before me, the crux issue involved in this instant writ petition is whether the matter should be dealt under
Section 30 or Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? To determine the issue, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is reproduced as
follows:
Reference to Court: - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector,
required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement
of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the
persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made, -
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collector''s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six
months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire.
On bare perusal, it appears that when reference is made under Section 18 of the said Act, it is referred to determine the actual quantum of
compensation. Similarly, Section 30 reproduced herein below is to decide or determine who is entitled to receive the compensation if there is more
than one claimant.
Dispute as to apportionment - When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to
the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the
Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.
So after comparative study of both the sections, I find that both are standing under different grounds. First, reference under Section 18 is meant
for determination of quantum of compensation, whereas Section 30 is to determine about the actual claimant and title to receive the same. But
since in this case it is clear from the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent No. 1 had lost in the Title Suit and decree is in favour of
the petitioner, the question of title to decide under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not arise at all. Therefore, I am of the considered view that
if anything is left on this issue, it is to determine the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the matter involved in this writ petition needs to be
referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Considering the fact that a wrong methodology or procedure was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Court concerned, I
hereby set aside both the reference letters dated 31.01.2007 at annexure-5 as well as the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Land
Acquisition Case No. 137 of 2015. Petitioner is directed to make a fresh application to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District along with a
copy of this judgment and order and Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District is directed to take necessary steps immediately.
With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.