M/S. Kamakhya Realtors Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon cum Collector to determine the compensation of the land acquired from the Petitioner as an industrial land and not as agricultural land.

¶2A perusal of the writ petition shows that the Petitioner herein is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said Company owns a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 118, 120, 121 and 123 of K.P. Patta No. 27 of Village Gouripur, Mouza – Sila Sundarighopa in the District of Kamrup (Rural), Assam (for the sake of convenience referred to as "Petitioner's land'). It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the issuance of the Master Plan Page No.# 3/6 and the Zoning Regulation of the Greater Guwahati, 2025 the Petitioner's lands falls under the "Industrial Zone".

¶3It reveals from the records that vide a Notification bearing No. KRA.140/Bridge/2017/102/740 dated 08.06.2018 was issued under Section 3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition Act), 1964 (in short 'the Act of 1964') for requisition of various plots of land. In the said Notification so issued, the Petitioner's land was included. On the basis of the said Notification so issued, a Land Acquisition Case being L.A. Case No. 18/2018 was registered. Subsequent thereto, a Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1964 dated 14.09.2018 was issued whereby it was intimated to all concerned that acquisition proceedings was taken up for acquisition of various lands mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification w.e.f. the date of the said Notification. The Petitioner's land have been mentioned at Serial Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the said Notification i.e. lands pertaining to Dag Nos. 118, 120, 121 and 123 with corresponding K.P. Patta No. 27. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in the said Notification, though the said lands were classified in the Master Plan as "Industrial Zone" but however the said lands were classified as agricultural Page No.# 4/6 lands. It is therefore the case of the Petitioner that the determination of the compensation was not properly done by the Collector, Kamrup while awarding the compensation in terms with Section 11 of the Act of 1964. It is under such circumstances that the instant writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction upon the Collector to re-determine the compensation by taking into account that the Petitioner's lands are industrial lands.

¶4This Court have duly taken note of the materials on record and have also heard the learned counsels for the parties. This Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 12 of the Act of 1964 which stipulates as under :- "12. (1) The Collector shall in every case –

(a) Where any person aggrieved by an award made under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 Makes an application requiring the matter to be referred to the Court; or

(b) Where there is any disagreement with regard to the compensation payable under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 on the application of the person entitled to compensation requiring the matter to be referred to Court, refer the matter to the decision of the Court.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act I of 1894), shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any reference made to the Court under Sub-section (1)."

¶5From a perusal of the said Section, it would be seen that in terms Page No.# 5/6 with Section 12(1) (a) of the Act of 1964 if a person is aggrieved with the inadequacy of the compensation, the person concerned can file an application before the Collector. A statutory duty is cast upon the Collector thereupon to refer the said grievances of the person concerned to the Court. This Court further finds it relevant that Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1964 clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall duly apply mutatis mutandis to a reference to be made under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1964. Accordingly, the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will duly apply on the basis of legislation by incorporation.

¶6This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that once an award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1964, the Collector become functus officio. Under such circumstances, this Court at this stage after the passing of the Award cannot direct the Collector to re-determine the compensation. The inadequacy of the compensation has to be decided by the Court as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964.

¶7In that view of the matter, the writ of mandamus which have been sought by way of the instant writ petition cannot be issued thereby Page No.# 6/6 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup /the Collector to re-determine the compensation at this stage. Be that as it may, taking into account the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1964 and reading the same alongwith Section 18 and 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court grants the liberty to the Petitioner to submit an application before the Collector, Kamrup within 30 days from the date of the instant order seeking a reference to the Court as regards the inadequacy of the compensation. This Court further directs the District Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon (Land Acquisition Branch) upon receipt of the said application, to forthwith refer the said dispute for determination by the Court within 15 days therefrom.

¶8With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010089402020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooWP(C)/6263/2019 M/S.oKAMAKHYAoREALTORSoPVT.oLTD. AoCOMPANYoINCORPORATEDoUNDERoTHEoCOMPANIESoACTo1956 oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToINFINITYoTHINKoTANK oTOWER-II o10THoFLOOR oSECTORo-V oSALToLATLAKE oKOLKATA-700091 oANDoISoREP.oBYoITSoDULYoAUTHORISEDoREPRESENTATIVEoSHRIoMANOJo KUMARoAGARWAL oS/OoLT.oK.L.oAGARWAL oVERSUS THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo2oORS. REP.oBYoITSoSECRETARY oLANDoANDoREVENUEoDEPTT.oDISPUR oASSAM 2:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONERoCUMoCOMPETENToAUTHORITY UNDERoPROVISIONSoOFoRIGHToTOoFAIRoCOMPENSATIONoANDo TRANSPARENCYoINoLANDoACQUISITION oREHABILITATIONoANDoRESETTLEMENToACT o2013 oKAMRUP oAMINGAON oASSAM o3:GUWAHATIoMETROPOLITANoDEVELOPMENToAUTHORITY REP.oBYoITSoCHAIRMAN oBHANGAGARH oGUWAHATI-5 oASSAM o------------ Page No.# 2/6 For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate. Mr. H.K. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent (s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate. Date of hearing & Judgment : 30.08.2023 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH