AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellants and also Mr. B.M. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.
This first appeal has arisen from a common award dated 30.11.87 passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Misc. L.A. Case No. 124 to 207 of 1987. The entire matter relates to land acquisition acquired for the purpose of establishment of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals (in short BRPL) Complex at Dhaligaon in the district of Bongaigaon.
Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1973 a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of land for establishment of BRPL Complex and the lands were acquired in 1974. On 17.2.76 the Collector assessed compensation of entire lands belonging to more than 175 villagers of the area at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per bigha at a flat rate. Then the matter was referred to the reference Court for-enhancement and accordingly the reference Court by its order dated 16.4.82 enhanced the award to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- for Basti or homestead land. Being aggrieved by the said award, a review petition was preferred before the reference Court and the reference Court by its order dated 21.8.82 passed a review award enhancing the award to Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 8,500/-.
Against the said enhanced award of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- the State of Assam preferred a batches of first appeal being First Appeal Nos. 67-193/83 before this Court. This Court on 29.1.87 set aside the said review order and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. The reference Court, taking up the matter afresh on remand, by its order dated 30.11.87 fixed the award at Rs. 3,500/- per Bigha at flat rate. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said fixation of award at Rs. 3,500/- the present appeal has been preferred.
Be it mentioned herein that the Ors. set of villagers numbering twentytwo also approached the reference Court in Misc. (L.A.) Case Nos. 194-245/82 being dissatisfied with the Collector''s assessment of compensation of their respective lands at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per bigha. The reference Court by its order dated 14.3.84 in the light of the earlier review order dated 21.8.82 enhanced the award to Rs. 8,000/- per bigha for agricultural land and Rs. 8,500/- for homestead land.
The State of Assam also approached this Court against the said award of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 8,500/- given to the Ors. villagers in Misc. (L.A.) Case Nos. 194-245/82 by preferring first appeal being F.A. Nos. 34-55/85 and this Court by its order dated 10.12.90 dismissed the said appeals holding:
We see no reason to interfere with the valuation fixed by the reference Court as valuation was fixed with reference to an earlier award passed in M.C. No. 76 to 139/82 wherein the land is valued at Rs. 8,000/- for cultivable land Rs. 8,500/- for homestead land. The land in the instant cases are comparable lands and are located in the vicinity of the land in M.C. 76 of 1982. These appeals by the State Government therefore have no merits and are dismissed.
A copy of the said judgment dated 10.12.90 has been made a part of the record.
Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that a similar order may be passed in this case also in the light of the order dated 10.12.90 passed in F.A. Nos. 34-55/85.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant should get a similar treatment being situated similarly with the said Appellants in the said F.A. Nos. 34-55/85. As the present Appellant approached this Court at a later stage, he should not be denied the benefit of the said judgment passed on 10.12.90. In support of his argument, Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, A specific reference has been made in the relevant part of paragraph 5 of the said judgment and the same is quoted below:
Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock the doors of the Court of justice because these doors do not open unless judge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson''s choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are Ors. wise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court.
Having regard to the judgment and order dated 10.12.90 passed by this Court mentioned above and also Inder Pal Yadav''s case (supra) and also upon hearing the counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 10.12.90 and accordingly this appeal deserves to be allowed. In that view of the matter, I direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the Appellant at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- for cultivable land and Rs. 8,500/- for homestead land. The Appellant is also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% over the amount of entire compensation by deducting the portion of award already paid.
Subject to the observation and direction made above, this appeal stands disposed of. This order also disposes of First Appeal Nos. 36 to 109 of 1993.