Thanglemngir Chiru and Another vs D.C. and Collector of Land Acquisition and Others

P.C. Phukan, J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Petitioners have sought an appropriate writ for payment to them interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) on the amount of compensation paid to them on 6.11.96 without interest. They have claimed interest for the period upto 6.11.96 from 1981 when they lost possession of the land in question.

I have heard learned senior counsel Mr A. Nilamoni and learned senior counsel Mr A. Bimol for the Petitioners as well as learned Counsel Mr K. Bipinchandra and learned Govt. Advocate Kh. Nimaichand appearing for the Respondents. I have also considered the records of the case.

By the order dated 22.10.96 (Annexure-A/4), the Respondent No. 1 Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Land Acquisition, Churachandpur, awarded a total amount of Rs. 4,97,127.80 paise as compensation without any direction to pay interest thereon. This order is purported to have been made u/s 11 of the Act. This order contains the substance of the facts leading to making of this award. It transpires from this order that unsurveyed hill land measuring 48.78 acres had been occupied by the Respondent No. 3 Loktak Project Authorities for construction of Magazine Store at Leimatak Phase-V in 1981. On 30.4.81 the Respondent No. 1 issued a public notification (Annexure-A/1) stating therein that the said 48.78 acres of land had been affected by the location of the Magazine. This public notification caused upon the persons having any interest in such land to claim compensation to the extent of their respective interest therein. There being no dispute over 0.31 acres of the said land, the Respondent No. 3 paid compensation to the persons having interest therein. As regards the remaining (48.78 - 0.31) 48.47 acres, the Respondent No. 1 after enquiry made an order dated 14.7.82. The Lamdan Kabui Village chief did not accept the same and applied to the Respondent No. 1 to make a reference u/s 18 of the Act The Respondent No. 1 rejected the application by his order dated 6.8.82 on the ground that his order dated 14.7.82 was not passed u/s 11 of the Act and that no notification u/s 4 & 6 of the Act was ever issued. Against this order dated 6.8.82, the village Chief approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court by an order dated 24.1.84 set aside the said order and directed the Respondent No. 1 to make a reference. Pursuant to such direction, the Respondent No. 1 made a reference. The reference Court, i.e. the District Judge, registered the reference as Original Suit (Land Acquisition) No. 8/1984 and disposed of the same by the judgment and order dated 4.9.87. Against this, two appeals, viz, F.A. No. 18/1987 and F.A. No. 4/1988 were filed in this Court. This Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment and order dated 22.S.96 (Annexure-C/1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4). The operative portion thereof reads as under:

(1) Claimant No. 2 is declared as owner of die land measuring 48.78 acres, and he is entitled to receive the compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre and a Solatium at the rate of 30%.

(2) Claimant No. 3 shall be entitled to receive the entire compensation amount in respect of 395 Yonchak trees and 39498 Plantation trees at the rate of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 2/- per tree respectively. They shall also be entitled 30% Solatium.

The above judgment and order contain no direction to pay interest on the amount of compensation awarded. The claimant Nos. 2 and 3 referred to therein are the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the instant Civil rule.

An application to review the above judgment and order dated 22.S.96 was filed with a petition praying for condoning the delay of one year, one month and eighteen days in filing the same. This Court rejected the prayer by an order dated 2.9.96 (Annexure-C/4 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 48/1996 arising out of Civil Review Petition No. 1/1996. The above judgment remain unchallenged and reached the finality. It is clear from the operative portion thereof that this Court did not remand the matter to the Collector for making an award u/s 11, but itself pronounced the final decision as to the area of the land, the compensation which in its opinion should be allowed for the land and the appointment of the said compensation between the Petitioners. These matters were thus not left to be decided by the Collector by making an award u/s 11 of the Act. Yet the Collector (Respondent No. 1), after receipt of the said judgment dated 22.5.96 passed the order dated 22.10.96 (Annexure-A/4) labelling it to be an award purported to have been made u/s 11 of the Act.

Even if there was no such judgment of this Court finally deciding the matter, an award u/s 11 could have been made only after issuance of notification u/s 4 by the State Government, making report u/s 5A by the Collector to the State Government, issuance of notification/direction u/s 6 / 7 by the State Government and issuance of public notice u/s 9 by the Collector requiring the persons having interest in the land to make claim for compensation to the extent of their respective interest therein. Before this Court''s judgment dated 22.5.96, none of these steps was taken. None of the notification required to be issued under the Act was issued. The public notice dated 30.4.81 (Annexure-A/1) cannot be said to be the one u/s 9, for, a notice u/s 9 could have been issued only after issuance of notices-Under Section 4, 6 and 7. Nor the order dated 14.7.82 can be said to be an award u/s 11, for, such an award could have been made only after issuance of a valid notice u/s 9. It was only after this Court''s judgment dated 22.5.96, they State Government issued notification u/s 4 on 13.9.96 and notification u/s 6 and 7 on 5.10.96. No public notification u/s 9 was, however, issued. The Collector gave the reason for such non-issuance in Para 8 of his award dated 22.10.96 (Annexure-A/4) as "public notification was already issued vide Nos. 5/25/DC (S) 80 dated 30.4.81". But is has already been held that public notification dtd. 30.4.81 is not one u/s 9. Hence the award dated 22.10.96 (Annexure-A/4) made without first issuing a valid public notice u/s 9 cannot be said to be an award u/s 11 of the Act.

In view of the above, instead of treating the award dated 22.10.96 as one u/s 11, it ought to be treated as an order passed by the Collector to implement the judgment dated 22.5.96 passed by the Division Bench of this Court finally deciding the compensation matter which remaining unchallenged and researched finality. The Petitioners were paid compensation pursuant to this judgment and not on the strength of any award made by the Collector u/s 11 or by the Reference Court u/s 26 of the Act. It is, therefore, beyond the scope of the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to give any relief to the Petitioner either u/s 34 or u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by adding anything to this Court''s judgment dated 22.5.96 which gave no direction to pay interest u/s 34 on the amount awarded nor awarded any amount u/s 23(1-A) in addition to the market value of the land.

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.