Syedur Rahman vs The State of Assam and Ors.

[1] Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

[2] This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been preferred by the appellant, Md. Syedur Rahman, impugning the judgment and order dated 04.02.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit (Land Acquisition) No. 30/2016, whereby the enhanced compensation for the acquired land was granted to the present appellant at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) per Bigha, along with an interest and the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of compensation order by the Collector till receipt of the same.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellant was the absolute owner of a plot of land, measuring 4 Bigha 2 Katha 7 Lecha, situated at Revenue Village- Salbari, under Revenue Circle and Tehsil-Boitamari, Assam covered by Dag No. 564 of periodic Patta No. 103. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Government acquired a portion of land, measuring 1 Bigha, 1 Katta, 5 Lecha for construction of a broad-gauge railway line in between New Maynaguri and Jogighopa.

[4] At the time of acquisition of the aforesaid land, the District Collector, Bongaigaon, assessed the value of the land, at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) per Bigha and also assessed the total compensation payable to the present appellant, including the compensation against the standing structures in Zirat of the petitioner over the acquired land at Rs. 6,62,312/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve) only.

[5] Being aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment, the present appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Officer, (Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon) praying for referring the matter to the appropriate court for determination of adequate compensation for acquisition of 1 Bigha, 1 Katha, 5 Lecha of land of the appellant. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. The said case was registered as Misc. L.A. Case No. 12/2014. The present respondent Nos. 1 and No. 2 had filed separate written statements in the aforesaid reference case. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed in Title Suit (Land Acquisition) No. 30/2016, the reference was disposed of in the manner has already been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.

[6] Mr. M. A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that though several grounds have been taken in the memo of appeal by the present appellant, however, the main grievance of the appellant is that due to acquisition of a portion of land of the present appellant, i.e., 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land, out of total land of 4 Bigha, 2 Katha 7 Lecha only 3 Bigha 1 Katha 2 Lecha of land remains with the present appellant. He further submits that due to construction of railway track over the acquired land, the remaining land measuring 3 Bigha 1 Katha 2 Lecha has been severed into two parts. He submits that due to construction of railway track, the severed land of the appellant remains submerged under rainy water during rainy season and has become unusable for human living and for construction of dwelling houses, hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation for the damage sustained by the present appellant by the reason of severing of his land into two parts due to acquisition made by the respondent authorities.

[7] He submits that though the reference court has enhanced the value of the land from Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) per Bigha to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) per Bigha, however, the reference court has not made any observation regarding the damage caused to the appellant due to severance of his remaining land due to acquisition. He submits that under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the column 3^rdly, any damage sustained by the person interested at the time of taking of possession of the land by the Collector by reason of severing of such lands from his other land, shall has to be taken into consideration for computing the due compensation payable to the appellant. However, neither the collector at the time of acquiring the land nor the reference court at the time of passing of the impugned judgment has taken into consideration the said fact. As such, he submits that due to submergence of water in the severed land during rainy season, the Zirat standing over the said land also got damaged and no compensation has been awarded to the appellant against such damage. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment of the reference court is liable to be modified by awarding the compensation which is due to the present appellant under Section 23 column 3^rdly of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

[8] On the other hand, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2, has submitted that though the reference court has not specifically stated in the impugned judgment anything regarding the severed land of the appellant, however, it has taken into consideration the fact that no damage has been caused to the present appellant due to such severance of land, after considering the averments made in the written statement filed by the Union Government before the reference court.

[9] He submits that the respondent No. 2 in its written statement filed by before the reference court has categorically denied that any damage is caused to the severed land of the appellant on account of acquisition of a portion of land of the appellant, i.e., 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha out of 4 Bigha 2 Katha 7 Lecha. He submits that it was categorically pointed to the reference court by the Union of India that railway track will be constructed by keeping provisions for sufficient clear waterways through railway bridges at railway chainage K.M.228/131 and K.M. 228.754 (within Major Bridge) and three Road Under Bridge (RUB) to avoid any submergence or water logging near railway lines.

[10] He submits that the construction of railway line over the acquired rent has been completed by keeping sufficient clear water ways through railway bridges and road under bridges as mentioned by the respondent No. 2 in their written statement. As such, no compensation is due to the appellant under Section 23(thirdly) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that in the meanwhile, the Union of India has already deposited the enhanced compensation awarded to the present appellant by the reference court before the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon and to support his submission, he has produced a communication dated 07.03.2024, of the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, N.F. Railway, Jogighopa.

[11] On the other hand, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 has also submitted that the reference court has taken into consideration all the aspects before enhancing the compensation awarded to the present appellant for acquisition of his land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha. She submits that the enhanced total compensation amounting to Rs. 9,29,040/- has already been paid to the present appellant. She also submits that the reference court has taken into consideration the averments made in the written statement of the Union of India as well as of the present respondent, which indicates that no damage was caused to the present appellant due to severance of his land into two parts on account of acquisition of 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land out of the total land of 4 Bigha 2 Katha and 7 Lecha.

[12] She further submits that the prayer of the present appellant in his application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are for referring his matter to the reference court for determination of adequate compensation by enhancing the awarded amount and same has been done by the reference court by enhancing the value of land which was acquired by the respondent authorities and also after taking into consideration all aspects of the matters. She, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award needs no interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

[13] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.

[14] On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the present appellant, while preferring the reference before the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, had mainly contended that the value of the acquired land has been assessed at an arbitrarily low rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per Bigha. It appears that, ultimately, by the impugned judgment, the said value has been enhanced from Rs. 1,20,000/- per Bigha to Rs. 6,00,000/- per Bigha. It also appears from record, after assessing the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- per Bigha, a compensation amount of Rs. 9,29,040/- has already been paid to the present appellant.

[15] It also appears that the present appellant also apprehended that since the height of the railway tracks shall be more than 3 meters, the remaining land of the appellant shall be submerged under rainwater during rainy season and, hence, shall be unusable for human living by constructing dwelling houses. However, said apprehension has been denied by the Union of India in its written statement by stating that the apprehension does not have any basis as the railway line will be constructed with provisions of sufficient clear waterways through railway bridges at Railway Chainage Km 228/131 and Km 228.754 (Major Bridge) and 3 Railway Under Bridges (RUB) to avoid any submergence or waterlogging near the railway line. The learned Central Government Counsel has also submitted that the railway line has been accordingly constructed and there has been no waterlogging as apprehended by the appellant in his application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

[16] On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that since, there is no evidence on record to show that due to severing of land of the appellant by the reason of acquiring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land out of his total land, any damage has been caused thereto due to waterlogging in the said land, as apprehended by the present appellant in his application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court finds no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, where no compensation was computed under Section 23, Thirdly, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as no evidence of any damage sustained by the present appellant could be adduced before the Reference Court.

[17] It also appears from record that the appellant has already received compensation amount of Rs. 2,57,868/- for structures and Rs. 58,549/- for zirat, as well as solatium and additional compensation at the rate of 30% and 12% respectively. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, on 04.02.2021 in Title Suit (Land Acquisition) No. 30/2016.

[18] In view of the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, as there is no merit in the present appeal.

[19] This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

[20] The Registry shall send back the records of Title Suit (Land Acquisition) Case No. 30/2016 to the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, along with a copy of this judgment.

[21] The parties are left to bear their own costs.