Hari Prasanna Acharjee vs State of Tripura and Another

B.B. Deb, J.—Heard Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

The plaintiff-appellant preferred this second appeal against the judgment/decree dated 4.4.2002/17.4.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2001 affirming the judgment/decree of the learned trial court (Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura District Udaipur) in T. S. No. 19/98.

The appeal is heard under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shortly, the plaintiff-appellant''s case is as follows :

Some land belonging to the plaintiff-appellant and his three brothers had been acquisitioned for public purpose by the State Government vide Notification dated 31.1.1981 under related provision of the Land Acquisition Act. The L. A. Collector following the provisions of law assessed the market rate of the land under acquisition and made the award apportioning the amount of award payable to the plaintiff-appellant and his brothers separately. They received the payment. However, the brothers of the plaintiff-appellant sought for a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Land Acquisition Collector referred the same to the learned Land Acquisition Judge. But the plaintiff-appellant did not seek for any reference. The learned L. A. Judge after recording evidence enhanced the amount of award so far the same related to the brothers of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant in 1998 filed a Title Suit seeking a declaration that he was entitled to be paid the enhanced amount according to his share and the suit was contested by the State Government and the L.A. Collector jointly contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The learned trial court dismissed the suit on preliminary issue being not maintainable. The plaintiff-appellant preferred first appeal which was also dismissed.

In this Second Appeal, the court is called upon to decide as to whether the learned courts below committed any illegality in holding that the civil court''s jurisdiction stood ousted in view of Section 18 of the L. A. Act ?

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil court cannot be inferred unless the Land Acquisition Act excludes the same either by express provision or by implication. He placed reliance on a decided case of this court in Asher Ali Vs. Sukhna Seikh (deceased by LR''s) and Others, In the case of Asher Ali (supra) this court was called upon to decide as to whether any dispute arising out of an award relating to apportionment of the same or any part thereof could be decided by a civil court in view of Section 30 of the L.A. Act. In that case (supra), the plaintiff was not a party in the acquisition proceedings u/s 30 of the L.A. Act. The land originally belonged to one Sanaton Seikh who died leaving behind him two sons, namely Shri Gangar Seikh and Panimal Seikh, who inherited the property in equal share. But the award was made only in favour of the successors of Panimal Seikh and the legal heirs of Gangar Seikh were not party in the Land Acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the successors of Gangar Seikh filed a civil Suit seeking declaration of their entitlement to the acquisitioned land and this court in the aforecited case held that the suit was maintainable at the instance of the successors of Gangar Seikh who were not party before the L.A. Collector in the land acquisition proceedings.

But in the present case, the plaintiff-appellant along with his brothers participated in the land acquisition proceedings before the L.A. Collector and they received the compensation. However, the brothers of the plaintiff-appellant sought for a reference u/s 18 of the L.A. Act and the awarded amount stood enhanced in the land acquisition proceedings by the learned L.A. Judge. The plaintiff-appellant did not seek for any reference, presumably he was not dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and as such, in my considered opinion, the decision of Asher Ali (supra) has no manner of application in the present case.

The Land Acquisition Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation. If any awardee is dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the L.A. Collector, his remedy is to avail of the provision of Section 18 of the L.A. Act. If there is any dispute regarding the entitlement or apportionment, the provision of Section 30 of the L.A. Act could be availed of by the party concerned.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that in case a party fails to avail of the provision of L.A. Act, his right cannot be denied if otherwise entitled to be ventilated under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

On a careful reading of the provision of section 9 of the CPC, it appears that the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain and decide all disputes of civil nature unless the same is/are excluded either by express provision by necessary implication.

There is no dispute regarding the apportionment. The plaintiff-appellant''s claim is confined to enhancement of the award for which elaborate provision has been thereunder Section 18 of the L. A. Act. So far the provision of Section 30 of the L.A. Act is concerned, a person who was not a party before the L.A. Collector and who came to learn as to the making of award and payment thereof at a later stage may seek for appropriate relief in filing a civil suit as permissible u/s 9 of the CPC, but in no circumstances a party who participated in the L.A. proceedings can be allowed to vindicate his grievance, if any, before any civil court as the alternative efficacious redressal provision is provided with elaborate mechanism in the L.A. Act itself. The plaintiff-appellant being an awardee could have asked the L.A. Collector to make reference u/s 18 of the L. A. Act, but he did not. He could have even resorted to the provision of Section 28A of the L. A. Act, but that too he did not. All these go to show that at no point of time, the plaintiff-appellant felt himself aggrieved as to the amount awarded by the L.A. Collector, but after a long time he woke up and filed the civil suit.

In the aforesaid legal position, I am constrained to hold that regarding enhancement of amount awarded by the L. A. Collector, exhaustive and efficacious mechanism is available to an aggrieved to resort to the provision of Section 18 of the L. A. Act. One could avail of the provision of Section 28A of the L. A. Act also if the contingencies embodied therein are satisfied, but in no case seeking enhancement of awarded amount, the awardee is entitled to file any civil suit.

On a combined reading of the provisions of sections 18 and 28A of the L. A. Act, I am of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide a litigation seeking for enhancement of compensation stands impliedly ousted and as such the impugned judgments suffer from no illegality.

In the result, the Second Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at this stage with no order as to costs.