Dismissed

Mala Dutta and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Dec 2021WP(C)/5605/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the acquisition process initiated in 1984 lapsed because no declaration was made within the statutory period, and the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

No compensation directed; the writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mala Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No. 1/8

¶2

GAHC010039572017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5605/2017

¶5

MALA DUTTA and ANR. W/O. LT. DEEPAK DUTTA,

¶6

2: ABHIJEET RANJAN DUTTA S/O ASHA RANJAN DUTTA BOTH ARE R/O. H.K. MUDOI SHYAM NAGAR P.O. BORJHAR AIRPORT P.S. AZARA DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN-781015

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY ITS COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF REVENUE LandR, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE PATGAON AZARA GUWAHATI-17 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP M

¶13

Page No. 2/8

¶14

GUWAHATI-01 ASSAM.

¶15

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE

¶16

AZARA GUWAHATI-17 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 15-12-2021

¶22

Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

¶23

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by two petitioners viz. 1) Smt. Mala Dutta and 2) Sri Abhijeet Dutta seeking a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 4 to release the compensation in respect of an acquired plot of land measuring 50 Bighas, covered by Dag no. 245 and Patta no. 1, located in Village–Patgaon, Mouza–Dakhin Rani under Palashbari Revenue Circle [now Azara Circle], District–Kamrup [Metro], Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short] in connection with Land Acquisition Case no. 12/1984 in favour of the petitioners.

¶24

The petitioners have asserted that they are the legal heirs of Sailla Bala Dutta, who they have projected as the original pattadar in respect of the subject-plot. According to the

¶25

Page No. 3/8

¶26

petitioners, the subject-plot was acquired by the District Administration for construction of a BSF Camp in connection with L.A. Case no. 12/1984. The projected original pattadar, Sailla Bala Dutta expired in the year 1976. The petitioners have mentioned that Sailla Bala Dutta was their grandmother. Sailla Bala Dutta had three sons viz. 1) Chitta Ranjan Dutta, 2) Mihir Ranjan Dutta and 3) Asha Ranjan Dutta. Chitta Ranjan Dutta who expired in the year 1992, had one son viz. Deepak Dutta who also expired in the year 1993. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of Late Deepak Dutta. The petitioner no. 2 is the son of Late Asha Ranjan Dutta who expired earlier than 1984. Mihir Ranjan Dutta also expired prior to 1984. Other family members were not aware about the acquisition process of their land for construction of BSF Camp. The petitioners have instituted this writ petition in the year 2017 seeking the above relief.

¶27

3.1. In order to project that the petitioners are eligible to receive compensation in respect of the subject-plot, they have annexed a copy of Jamabandi [Records-of-rights] in respect of the subject-plot, obtained on 18.09.2009, annexed as Annexure-A. They have further contended that the subject-plot was acquired for construction of a BSF camp and the said camp was constructed in the year 1984 without making the compensation. Thereafter, the petitioners tried pillar to post for release of the compensation for the acquired subject-plot but the respondent authorities did not pay any heed to their prayers. It has been asserted that the subject-plot is still in the name of Late Sailla Bala Dutta. A notice dated 25.08.1984 [Annexure-E to the writ petition] was stated to have been served on Sailla Bala Dutta as per Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby, she was notified that the subjectplot would be acquired for construction of a BSF Camp and if she had any objection, such objection be filed before the Land Acquisition Branch, O/o the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup on or before 04.09.1984.

¶28

3.2. The estimate of probable cost of acquisition of land [Annexure-H to the writ petition] in respect of the subject-plot was also prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup after local enquiry. As per the said estimate of probable cost of acquisition of the subject-plot dated 23.03.1985, the total amount of compensation payable was Rs. 3,99,872.29/-. While on one hand, the petitioners have mentioned that they have not been paid the compensation for the

¶29

Page No. 4/8

¶30

subject-plot in connection with L.A. Case no. 12/1984 but at the same time, they have also stated that the land record of the land in question is still under possession of the petitioners and they have been paying land revenue regularly to the Government.

¶31

In the writ petition, the respondent BSF authorities through its Deputy Inspector General have filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 26.07.2018. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the BSF authorities have categorically stated that the subject-plot was never acquired by the BSF and the question of compensation does not arise. The matter regarding acquisition of land in relation to the subject-plot for BSF was turned down. A letter bearing no. ARC20/2017/804 dated 16.10.2017 of the respondent no. 5 has been annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition whereby it was informed to the BSF authorities that the BSF had not acquired the subject-land covered by Dag no. 245 pursuant to L.A. Case no. 12/1984.

¶32

The respondent nos. 4 and 5 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition through the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M]. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that though the proposal was initiated to acquire the subject-land for the BSF Camp, but during enquiry it was found that the subject-plot was involved in Ceiling Case no. 1/1985. Ceiling Case no. 1/1985 was instituted against Rani Tea Estate. A writ petition, Civil Rule no. 182/1985 was instituted against Ceiling Case no. 1/1985, which was disposed of with a direction to afford opportunity of hearing to the claimants. The total area of land under Rani Tea Estate held by the owners was 1845 Bighas – 1 Katha – 5 Lessas [1845B-01K-05L]. Upon examination, an area of land measuring 140B-02K-03L was declared excess. An area of land measuring 90B-02K-03L out of 140B-02K-03L covered by Dag no. 245 was involved in Ceiling Case no. 1/1981. The said land was made Government land as per an order dated 23.02.1982 of the Collector in Ceiling Case no. 1/1981. After the said order dated 13.02.1982, the Circle Officer, Palashbari Revenue Circle vide an order dated 11.03.1982 made the land Government land. From the statement made in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it has clearly emerged that the land acquisition process initiated vide Land Acquisition Case no. 12/1984 was not complete.

¶33

The petitioners have not annexed any declaration made under Section 6 of the Land

¶34

Page No. 5/8

¶35

Acquisition Act, 1894 with the writ petition. The respondent authorities have, on the other hand, categorically asserted that the land acquisition process was never complete. The petitioners have not stated what steps they had taken for release of such compensation during the period from 1985 to 2014, a period of about 30 years and there is complete silence on the part of the petitioners in this regard.

¶36

The land acquisition process was initiated in the year 1984 vide L.A. Case no. 12/1984, as has been noted above.

¶37

Section 6 and Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed] read as under :-

¶38

“6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.– (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made wherever required under section 5A, sub-section (2);

¶39

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),-

¶40

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

¶41

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:

¶42

Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or

¶43

Page No. 6/8

¶44

partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

¶45

Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

¶46

Explanation 2.- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.

¶47

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration, and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.

¶48

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.

¶49

11A. Period shall be which an award shall be made.– The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

¶50

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

¶51

Explanation.– In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.”

¶52

Page No. 7/8

¶53

Clause [ii] of the proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed] has provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section [1], published often the commencement of the Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 has prescribed that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.

¶54

From the materials on record including the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it is evident that there was no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed] in respect of the subject-plot. If the land acquisition proceeding initiated by L.A. Case no. 12/1984 had lapsed in the meantime, there is no question payment of any compensation to the petitioners as the subject-plot has never been acquired. The Jamabandi [Record-of-right] in respect of the subject-plot, annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition, goes to corroborate the fact asserted in the affidavit-inopposition of the respondent no. 4 and 5 to the extent that an area of land measuring 50 Bighas, covered by Patta no. 1 & Dag no. 245, was made Ceiling Government Land by an order dated 11.03.1982 in compliance of an order dated 23.02.1982 passed by the Collector in Ceiling Case no. 1/1981. The name of the pattadar in respect of the subject-plot, Sailla Balla Dutta was struck-off. It prima facie goes to show that the subject-plot was made Government Ceiling surplus land in the year 1982 which was prior to initiation of the land acquisition proceeding in L.A. Case no. 12/1982.

¶55

This Court has taken note of the fact that the land acquisition process was of the year 1984 and the writ petition was filed after 33 [three] years in the year 2017, that too, without disclosing the essential facts. Considering the fact that the land acquisition process in respect of which the petitioners have sought for a direction for compensation, had been lapsed in the meantime, the reliefs sought for by this writ petition for compensation is not maintainable.

¶56

Page No. 8/8

¶57

This writ petition is, thus, found devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Mala Dutta and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mala Dutta and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Dibru Part-I Meen Samabay Samiti Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bolindra Deori and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Durlav Raj Saikia and Anr, Vs the United Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Krishna Kamal Borgohain Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corpn. and 3 Ors.