AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel who appears for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 191. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Govt. Advocate appears for respondent Nos. 192 and 193.
This is an appeal filed by the appellants, i.e., Union of India & Others against the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2014, passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 54/2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/private
respondents directing the appellants to pay compensation to the plaintiffs/private respondents for damages suffered by them, on account of withdrawal
of the process of land acquisition proceedings over their land.
The appellants were the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the State were the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the Civil Suit proceedings whereas, the plaintiffs in
the Civil Suit, are now respondent Nos. 1 to 191 in the present appeal.
Be it stated herein, that the respondent Nos. 1 to 191 earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 84/2011, seeking a direction to the
respondent authorities to either acquire their land as was notified or to determine compensation for damages caused to their lands, crops, trees etc., on
account of the verification and survey conducted on their land. This Court after observing that the case projected by the private respondents could not
be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the writ petition vide Order dated 30.11.2011. However, the
private respondents were given liberty to approach the appropriate forum to ascertain the damages if any, caused to their property after the
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) was issued.
After the writ petition was dismissed in the above manner, the private respondents as plaintiffs approached the Court of Senior Civil Judge at
Aizawl by filing Civil Suit No. 54/2012, claiming an amount of Rs. 14,66,44,450/- as compensation from the appellants for the damages caused to their
land and crops. The private respondents further claimed payment of interest @ 12% p.a. from 8. 04.2008 till realization of the amount claimed.
Against the Civil Suit filed by the private respondents, the appellants filed their written statement contending inter-alia that the land in question was
not occupied by the Ministry of Defence though there was a proposal from the local Army authorities i.e., Station Headquarters at Aizawl, Mizoram to
acquire land at Vawngawn Ram for Brigade Key Location Plan (KLP). However, since the State Government denied the proposed acquisition on
account of dispute in land ownership and political issues, the proposal for acquiring the land did not materialize. The appellants maintained that the
private respondents were not prevented from using and developing their land at any point of time. In fact, only a preliminary survey was conducted in
the year, 2009 and the survey was not completed due to non-receipt of NOC from the State Government. The appellants also contended that sanction
from the competent authority had also not been sought for acquiring the land and therefore, the Civil Suit be dismissed.
The Revenue Department, who were arrayed as defendant No. 4 also filed their written statement contending inter-alia that the private respondents
as plaintiffs in the Civil Suit, failed to prove that they were owners of the land in Vawngawn Ram area. They disputed the amount of compensation
quantified by the plaintiffs themselves, inasmuch as, the verification and assessment of crops, plants etc., was only to be carried out by the District
Collector concerned in terms of the L.A. Act. They further contended that the Revenue Department as well as the District Collector, Aizawl acted
upon the requisition made by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, through their Sub-ordinate Officials such as, the Defence Estate Officer
and the Local Army Authorities for acquisition of land for establishment of Brigade KLP at Vawngawn Ram and had the acquisition proceeding been
finalized, the payment of compensation will have to be made by the Ministry of Defence. However, as the Station Commander vide communication
dated 21.05.2011 intimated closure of the acquisition proceeding, the same was withdrawn. Hence, there was no cause of action against the Revenue
Department of the State and the Suit be dismissed.
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Aizawl District, Aizawl, who was arrayed as defendant No. 5 in the Civil Suit also filed his
written statement against the claim of the private respondents. It was contended inter-alia that the private respondents as plaintiffs failed to prove that
they were owners of the land in Vawngawn Ram area and that the list of land holding, tax payment receipts and the chart showing the land at
Vawngawn Ram area which were annexed to the plaint were no proof of their ownership over the land at Vawngawn Ram. It was further denied
that upon the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, the private respondents were prevented from developing, cultivating or
looking after their lands. Further, the private respondents as plaintiffs failed to prove that the verification report annexed to the plaint as Annexure-6
was a verification report prepared by officials of the Deputy Commissioner’s establishment as per the detailment vide Office Order dated
02.12.2010 (Annexure-5 to the plaint). Thus, it was prayed that the plaint or Civil Suit be dismissed with cost.
During the suit proceedings, the learned Trial Court framed five issues which are as follows:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs has cause of action against defendant or not?
(iii) Whether the quantum of Agriculture and Horticulture crops submitted by the plaintiffs was false or not?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs have valid passes in the suit land?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief claimed or not? If so, to what extent?
In support of their claims, the private respondents led their evidence through Shri Rohmingthanga (Plaintiff No. 133). The said witness on behalf of
all the plaintiffs submitted his examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit. He contended that he and all the other plaintiffs were owners of land in
Vawngawn Ram which was under the jurisdiction of Chaltlang Local Council, Aizawl having periodic permits and Village Council passes for the
same. Since the Ministry of Defence/Army required land for construction of a permanent location of Army Brigade in Mizoram, the Station
Commander, Adhoc Station Headquarters at Aizawl wrote a letter on 14.02.2008 to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Mizoram,
Revenue Department for assistance in acquiring 2460.10 acres of land at Vawngawn Ram area. A further request was also made for verification of
the lands and the owners thereof, who were likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition. To his knowledge, the preliminary verification report
made by the State Revenue Department indicated that the land of the plaintiffs besides others would be affected by the proposed acquisition. The
Revenue Department of the State thereafter, issued a notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act on 08.04.2008 notifying that an area of land
covering 2460.10 acres of land at Vawngawn Ram area within Chaltlang Village Council (erstwhile) was required for public purpose for construction
of Brigade KLP. The plaintiffs were therefore, not allowed to develop, cultivate or look after their lands from the month of April, 2008 onwards by the
appellants. Subsequently, on 21.06.2010 another notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, was issued with an identical reference and purpose
similar to the notification issued earlier. According to the plaintiff witness, their lands fell under the earmarked area proposed to be acquired. The
Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector vide Order dated 02.12.2010 directed verification of land at Vawngawn Ram area where their lands
were again found to be within the area earmarked for acquisition. That in spite of the publication of the two notifications, no further steps were taken
by the appellants as well as the State Government, which compelled them to seek information by filing an application under the RTI Act on
23.08.2011. In reply to the query, the State Revenue Department informed them that though the acquisition proceeding was taken up by the State
Government, there was a communication issued by the Station Commander, Adhoc Station Headquarters, Aizawl informing that the acquisition
proceeding should not be pursued. However, the appellants at the same time were informed that even if the acquisition proceedings was decided to be
withdrawn, they would still be liable to compensate the plaintiffs in terms of the relevant provisions of the L.A. Act. Therefore, as the acquisition
proceeding was not completed, the appellants were liable under Section 48 of the L.A. Act, to pay the amount of compensation alongwith interest, as
was claimed in the Civil Suit. The plaintiff witness exhibited as many as 10 documents, which were in fact the annexures appended to the plaint. The
said witness was briefly cross examined by the counsel for the State Government but there was none to cross examine him on behalf of the
appellants.
The Revenue Department adduced their evidence by producing one Shri C. Chalsawithanga, as the sole defendant witness on behalf of the
Department. The said witness besides exhibiting the written statement filed by the defendant No. 4 and the signatures appended thereto did not make
any deposition. However, in his cross examination, he deposed that he did not know as to whether the plaintiffs were barred from looking after their
respective land by the appellant pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The Trial Court thereafter, concluded the Civil Suit
proceeding by pronouncing its Judgment & Order on 15.12.2014 in favour of the plaintiffs as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
Appearing for the appellants, Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel submits that there was no sanction from the competent authority to initiate the
acquisition proceeding by publishing a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. He submits that the communication dated 14.02.2008
made by the Station Commander and Presiding Officer (Exhibit P-3) to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department was only
a communication requisitioning certain documents in order to finalize the acquisition process for 2460.10 acres of land at Vawngawn Ram. By
referring to Article 77 of the Constitution of India, he submits that until and unless the competent authority as provided in the conduct of business by
the Government of India gives the approval in the manner prescribed, communication such as the one under reference cannot be construed to be a
decision communicated to the State Government for initiating land acquisition proceeding. He submits that by the said communication, the assistance
of the State Government for providing the required documents in order to take a final call with regard to the proposed acquisition was only sought for.
Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel by referring to the notification dated 08.04.2008 (Exhibit P-4) further submits that the same cannot be understood
to be a notification contemplated under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, inasmuch as, the mandate of Section 4 of the L.A. Act, is that the notification is to
be published in the Official Gazette and also in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality concerned and out of which, at least one should
be in the regional language. Therefore, a bare perusal of Exhibit P-4 would go to show that the notification claimed as a notification under Section 4 of
the L.A. Act, was not published in the Official Gazette and that no presumption of its publication in the Official Gazette can be presumed.
Mr. B. Pathak further submits that in terms of Section 6 of the L.A. Act, the validity period of the notification under Section 4 is for a period of
one year and therefore, after the expiry of the prescribed period, the acquisition proceedings would automatically lapse. However, the State
Government in the Revenue Department issued a similar notification again on 21.06.2010, which too was not published in the Official Gazette. The
validity period of the said notification was only for one year and therefore, it expired on 21.06.2011. However, the State Government in the Revenue
Department on 17.10.2011 issued a notification withdrawing the acquisition proceeding notified under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, after the expiry of the
notification issued on 21.06.2010. He further submits that the notification dated 17.10.2011 withdrawing the land acquisition proceeding has also not
been exhibited by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the question of invoking Section 48 of the L.A. Act, does not arise.
Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel further submits that the verification and assessment report of the District Collector relied upon by the learned
Trial Court cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs were required to examine the author of the report and at the same time, afford the
appellants an opportunity to cross examine the author concerned to find out the basis of such report. He submits that Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides that Court may issue a commission for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the
market value of any property, if it thinks fit and call for the report of such commission. Order 9 Rule 10 of the CPC further provides that the
commissioner after such local inspection and after taking evidence and reducing the same into writing, return the evidence together with the report
duly signed by him to the Court. However, in the instant case, none of the passes were verified by the District Collector before making the assessment
and therefore, the assessment of the Collector cannot be relied upon and also in the absence of his examination by the parties during the suit
proceedings. He further submits that issue No. 3 is only in respect of damages and therefore, the learned Trial Court without determining the validity
of the passes or ownership, the claim of the plaintiffs could not have been simply relied upon. The decision made in respect of issue No. 3 could not
have been imported for deciding issue No. 4. He therefore submits that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that they were in possession of a
valid pass over the land in question and therefore, in absence of any such proof, there is no question of awarding compensation to the plaintiffs. In
support of his submissions, Mr. B. Pathak, relies upon the following decisions:-
1) Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 195
2) Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 92
3) Rajinder Singh Bhatti & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2009) 11 SCC 480
4) Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705
5) Jayamma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan & Ors., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 554.
Appearing for the private respondents, Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel submits that it is evident from the communication dated 13.06.2011
(Exhibit P-8) that the plaintiffs, in view of the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, could not continue to develop their respective lands.
The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram by the said communication clearly mentioned that even if the acquisition proceeding was ultimately
decided to be abandoned, the Ministry of Defence would still be liable to compensate the plaintiffs. He submits that the claim of the petitioners is
based on the principles of tort. They had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 84/2011 and this Court, while disposing of the writ petition
on 30.11.2011 gave liberty to the petitioners therein, to approach a competent forum with their grievance on damages caused to their land on account
of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the private respondents cannot be denied of the compensation entitled
to them on account of damages sustained by them. By referring to the notification dated 8. 04.2008 (Exhibit P-4), the learned counsel submits that a
copy of the notification was given to the appellants through the Station Commander, Adhoc Station Headquarters, Aizawl. Likewise, vide Office
Order dated 02.12.2010 (Exhibit P-5), the Officers of the Revenue Department were detailed to make verification of the lands on the claim made by
the land owners of Vawngawn Ram. A copy of the said order was clearly marked to the Station Commander, Adhoc Station Headquarters, Aizawl as
well as the Defence Estate Officer at Guwahati and therefore, the appellants cannot claim ignorance or question the notification issued under Section
4 of the L.A. Act.
Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel submits that the appellants at the appellate stage cannot take the plea that there was in fact no process of
acquisition in the real sense and that there was no sanction from the competent authority for acquiring the land of the private respondents at
Vawngawn Ram. He submits that from the communication dated 21.05.2011 (Exhibit D-2), such contention has clearly been belied, inasmuch as, the
acquisition process was not abandoned on account of there being no formal sanction from the competent authority but due to overall changes in
location plan. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is not tenable. He further submits that in fact, the appellants never denied or challenged the
notification issued by the Revenue authorities of the State under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and therefore, the present appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed while the Judgment & Order of the Trial Court should be up-held. He also submits that the dispute or objection raised by the
appellants ought to have been made before the Civil Court during the suit proceedings. However, the same not having been done, the appellants are
estopped from raising such issues and objections at the appellate stage. He also submits that the report of the commission through the District
Collector was never objected to by the appellants and therefore, it would not be open for them to dispute the same at this stage. To substantiate his
submissions, Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:-
1) Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 350
2) Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr., reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491
Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State respondents (respondent Nos. 192 and 193) submits that the appellants
were very much aware of the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, inasmuch as, a copy of the same was marked to them. In fact, the
appellants at no point of time raised objection on the steps taken by the State respondents in furtherance of the acquisition that was contemplated.
Therefore, it would not be open for them to take the plea that the proposed acquisition was not authorized at this stage. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte,
however, submits that the private respondents as plaintiffs failed to establish that they were in fact the owners of the respective plots of land as
claimed by them at Vawngawn Ram area. The plaintiffs not only failed to produce their respective passes and exhibit the same but also failed to show
that they were prevented from developing their respective plots of land. She submits that nowhere in the evidence have the plaintiffs been able to
show that they were not in a position to develop their land on account of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Therefore,
in absence of any evidence led by the plaintiffs that the land claimed by them indeed belonged to them, they are not entitled to any compensation on
account of the alleged damages suffered by them due to the proposed acquisition proceeding. She submits that at any rate, even if the Court finds that
the private respondents or the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, the same is to be satisfied by the appellants or the Ministry of Defence, inasmuch
as, the entire exercise of land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government was at the behest of the appellants for establishing Brigade
KLP at Vawngawn Ram.
I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and i have perused the materials available on record including the record of the Trial Court.
What can be noticed from the case projected by the parties is that the acquisition proceedings was initiated by the Revenue Department of the
State Government, after the communication dated 14.02.2008 (Exhibit P-3) was made by the Station Commander and Presiding Officer, Adhoc
Station Headquarters at Aizawl. The notification dated 08.04.2008 was a preliminary notification issued under Section 4 (i) of the L.A Act notifying
that all the persons interested in the land that was described should not to obstruct or interfere in the survey to be conducted for acquiring the land. As
per the schedule in the said notification, the area of land to be acquired was shown as approximately 2460.10 acres located at Vawngawn Ram within
the Chaltlang Village Council area (erstwhile). Since the acquisition proceeding did not materialize within the stipulated time of one year, as provided
by Section 6 of the L.A. Act, a similar notification was issued on 21. 06.2010, which again expired on 21.06.2011. However, after the communication
dated 21.05.2011 was made by the Station Commander to close the land acquisition proceeding, a notification in this connection was issued by the
Revenue Department of the State vide notification dated 17.10.2011. Under the circumstances, the question is as to whether the notification under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act, was authorized and that as to whether, the plaintiffs or the private respondents sustained damages to their crops, plants etc.
If they had indeed sustained damages, the extent of the damage will have to be established by leading evidence in the suit proceeding.
The plaintiffs/private respondents exhibited the communication dated 14. 02.2008 (Exhibit P-3) made by the Station Commander and Presiding
Officer to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department, wherein it was indicated that in order for the Army to finalize the
acquisition process of 2460.10 acres of land at Vawngawn Ram, Aizawl, certain informations and documents were required. It was further indicated
that the assistance of the State in the Revenue Department was required for procuring the document mentioned in the communication so that an early
conclusion could be made on the proposal for acquiring the land concerned. The next document exhibited by the plaintiffs/private respondents is the
notification issued by the Revenue Department of the State under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act (Exhibit P-4), notifying that the land at Vawngkawn
Ram measuring 2460.10 acres was likely to be needed for public purpose for establishment of Brigade KLP. What can be noticed is that there are no
materials in evidence to show that the Notification dated 08.04.2008 was issued with prior sanction and approval of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Defence. Section 6(ii) of the L.A. Act, provides that if no declaration is made by an authority duly authorized and the land is required for
public purpose, Section 4(i) notification would expire within a year from the date of its publication. Therefore, the notification that was published on
08.04.2008 under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act, expired on 08.04.2009. However, the State Government in the Revenue Department again published a
similar notification under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act, on 21.06.2010, which however was not exhibited by the plaintiffs/private respondents. Apart
from publishing the said notification again, no subsequent notification as may be required under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was published and therefore,
the same expired on 21.06.2011. Thereafter, the State Government in the Revenue Department vide Notification dated 17.10.2011 withdrew the
preliminary notification that was issued on 21.06.2010 under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act. The reason for the withdrawal of the notification was on
account of the communication made by the Station Commander, Adhoc Station Headquarters, Aizawl (Appellant No. 2). The said communication was
exhibited as Exhibit D-2 by the State Government in the Revenue Department (Respondent No. 192/Defendant No. 4). Although the appellants were
aware of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act, they did not raise any objection but rather informed the
State Government that the acquisition of 2460.10 acres of land at Vawngawn Ram be closed and not pursued any further due to over all changes in
Location Plan. At this stage, it may be stated herein that the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Sports Club & Anr (Supra) has held that the notings
recorded in the official files by the Officers of the Government at different levels and even the Ministers do not become decisions of the Government
unless the same is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may be, authenticated in the
manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2) of the Constitution and communicated to the affected persons. The notings and/or decisions recorded in
the file do not confer any right or adversely affect the right of any person and the same can neither be challenged in a court nor made basis for
seeking relief. What can be noticed in the present case is that the communication dated 14.02.2008 (Exhibit P-3) which was said to be the basis for
issuing a preliminary notification under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act was only made by the Station Commander and the Presiding Officer, Adhoc
Station Headquarters at Aizawl to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department. Therefore, such communication only fell short
of the requirements of an order or authorization in the manner provided under Articles 77(2) and 166(2) of the Constitution.
The appellants in their written statement before the learned Trial Court contended that the land in question was not occupied by them. They
further contended that the plaintiffs/private respondents were not prevented from using and developing their lands at any point of time. In fact, only a
preliminary survey was conducted during the year 2009 but the survey could not be completed due to non-receipt of No Objection Certificate from the
State Government. Besides this, they also contended that there was no sanction from the competent authority for acquiring the land in question. The
private respondents through their sole witness did not lead any evidence to establish or substantiate the extent of damages sustained by them. The
State Revenue Department as Defendant No. 4 and the District Collector as Defendant No. 5 also contended that the plaintiffs/private respondents
failed to prove that they were the owners of the land in Vawngawn Ram area since they failed to produce any passes in support of their claim. The
estimate which they submitted along with their plaint could not be accepted when no land passes were even produced or exhibited. In absence of such
evidence, the plaintiffs/private respondents cannot be in a position to claim damage compensation contemplated under Section 48 of the L.A. Act. Not
only is an authorization by the competent authority discernable from the evidence of the plaintiffs/private respondents but also in view of Section 6(ii)
of the L.A. Act, the preliminary notification published under Section 4(i) already expired when the notification of withdrawal was issued on
17.10.2011. In the case of Jayamma & Ors (Supra), the Apex Court held that under the scheme of the L.A. Act, the Government is at liberty to
withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken at any stage prior to passing of the award. In case the owner, in
consequence of such withdrawal, suffered damages, he would be entitled to compensation in that regard, under Section 48 of L.A. Act. However, in
the given circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that there was no question of issuing a notification of withdrawal since the proceeding had
already lapsed. Similarly in the present case, as the second preliminary notification that was issued on 21.06.2010 under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act
had already lapsed, when the withdrawal notification was issued and therefore, there was no question of withdrawing the acquisition proceeding. Thus,
in my considered opinion, Section 48 of the L.A. Act, will not be attracted.
Although the plaintiffs/private respondents may not be entitled to the damage compensation under Section 48 of the L.A. Act, 1894, but the fact
remains that in view of the notification published by the Revenue Department of the State contemplating acquisition of their lands, they may have
sustained damages on their crops and land. The same will however, be required to be established by leading reliable evidence. As may be noticed, the
plaintiffs/private respondents examined one Sh. Rohmingthanga as their only witness. In his deposition-in-chief, he contended that he and the others
were not allowed to develop, cultivate or look after their lands from April 2008 onwards by the defendants in view of the notification that was issued
on 08.04.2008, notifying the requirement of their lands for public purpose. He deposed that the defendants would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.
14,66,44,450/- along with 12% interest per annum from 08.04.2008 i.e., the date of notification for damage caused to their lands and crops. However,
besides deposing that their lands and crops were damaged and quantifying the claim, the said witness has not been able to specify as to what exactly
were the damages and how they were prevented from utilizing and developing their lands. He has only made a general statement, which by no means
can be considered to be sufficient in order to prove that damages were actually sustained and that they were liable to be compensated by the
defendants.
The learned Trial Court, on application made by the plaintiffs/private respondents under Section 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directed
the District Collector to make a verification and make an assessment. As directed, the District Collector thereafter submitted his report with an
assessment on 14.08.2014 assessing the damage compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,62,87,196.25/-. However, a perusal of the assessment made by the
District Collector would go to show that the District Collector on 01.08.2014 conducted a preliminary spot inspection and found that it was humanly
impossible to assess damages to crops, trees, plants etc., for the period between April 2008 to October 2011. But at the same time, he maintained that
his Office had a complete list of crops, plants etc., on the land to be acquired as on October, 2011. Therefore, by taking into account, the list
maintained by his Office, he made a calculation @35% of the actual value of crops, plants etc. Although the District Collector did not lead any
evidence on his part but the stand taken through pleadings was that the private respondents failed to prove that they were the actual land owners at
Vawngawn Ram and that no actual land Passes were produced. There was also no evidence to show that they were prevented from developing their
lands. The Apex Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra) reiterated the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court itself
in the case of Chaturbhuj Panda Vs Collector, Raigarh, reported in AIR 1969 SC 255 that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants may
have not been effectively cross examined and the Collector may have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal but the same however, does not mean that
the court is bound to accept their evidence. Judges are not computers. In assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call
into aid their experience of life. As judges of fact, it was open for the Appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of
probabilities. Coming to the present case, a perusal of the said assessment would only go to show that no actual spot verification was conducted and
the list of crops, plants etc., maintained by his Office has also not been explained or substantiated. Therefore, such calculation only appears to be a
calculation made on assumption which cannot be the basis for compensating the plaintiffs/private respondents. The conclusion arrived at by the
learned Trial Court on the basis of such calculation and findings would therefore be only misconceived, untenable and unsustainable. Having opined
that Section 48 of the L.A. Act is not attracted and that there is no evidence to establish the fact that the private respondents had sustained any loss or
damages on their land pursuant to the proposed acquisition of their land, it will be unnecessary to dwell upon the other authorities relied upon by the
parties.
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in the appeal. In the result, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2014
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 54/2012 is hereby set aside and quashed.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. Registry to send back the LCR forthwith. Parties to bear their own cost.