Allowed

Smt Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. v. District Collector, Serchhip District and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Jul 2022LA.App./1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the appeal to correct the lower court order. Directed the Collector to pay 9% interest annually on enhanced land acquisition compensation from possession until payment, and 15% if not paid within one year.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector to pay 9% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of possession, with 15% interest p.a. applicable if not paid within one year.

Smt Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. Vs District Collector, Serchhip… — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030001282022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : LA.App./1/2022

¶5

Smt Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. Mualpui, Chhingchhip 2: Sh Darlakthanga

3: Sh Rosiama

4: Sh Sapliana

5: Sh Dokima

6: Sh Lalengliana

7: Smt Thannguri

8: Sh Varhlunkunga

9: Smt Lalthangpuii

10: Smt V Zahluni

11: Sh Ngurremthang

VERSUS

District Collector, Serchhip District and 2 Ors. Serchhip 2:Secretary

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

Land Revenue and Settlement Deppt.

¶19

3:Project Director PWD Govt. of Mizora

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶22

BEFORE HOURNABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER

¶23

Date : 12-07-2022

¶24

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellants alongwith Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel representing the State respondents.

¶25

This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl, wherein the respondents were directed to re-assess/calculate the rate of land value of the appellants in respect of Award No. 1 of 2013 @ Rs.148/- (Rupees one hundred forty eight) only per square feet including solatium and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act.

¶26

Brief facts of the case is that the appellants were owners of the land located at Mualpui, Chhingchhip village, Serchhip District, Mizoram covered by various Land Settlement Certificate that the lands of the appellants were acquired by Award No. 1 of 2013 dated 10.06.2014 as per the provision of the L.A. Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction a diversion of National Highway No. 54.

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

The land value of the appellants for the purpose of acquisition was fixed @ Rs.74/- (Rupees seventy four) only per sq.ft in addition interest calculated @ 12 was also included in the Award No.1 2013. The appellants on coming to learn of the rates at which their lands was acquired were aggrieved and had prayed for re-evaluation of the rate under section 18 of the L.A. Act.

¶29

This matter was then referred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl and the application for re-evaluation was registered as L.A. Case No. 2 of 2016, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19 of 2016. In compliance with this Court’s Order dated 11.11.2021 in L.A. Appeal No. 3 of 2020 after the parties had adduced their further evidence and on hearing both the parties, the Reference Court finally passed the order dated 28.02.2022 wherein the respondents were directed to re-assess/calculate the rate of the land’s value of the appellants in respect of Award No. 1 of 2013 @ Rs.148/- (Rupees one hundred forty eight)only per sq.ft including solatium and interest as per L.A. Act, 1894. Hence this appeal.

¶30

Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Reference Court has failed to consider for payment of interest on access amount of compensation as provided under Section 28 of the L.A. Act, 1894 and submits that the Reference Court may be directed for payment of interest on the enhance amount @ 9% per annum from the date of which possession of the land was taken to the date of payment of such enhance amount to the Court and as per Section 28, such enhances amount is not paid within one year from the date of possession, they may be further

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

directed to pay 15% interest per annum on the enhance amount, which has not been

¶33

paid calculated from the date of expiry of one year from the date of deposition.

¶34

The learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Zothansanga & Ors. -Vs- District Collector, Aizawl District, Aizawl in case No. RFA No. 7 of 2019 where such an order has been made in a similar case for calculation of solatium and interest as per section 23(1) A(2) & 28 of the L.A. Act.

¶35

Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that they have no objection to the payment of interest under section 28 since this is the prescribed law under L.A. Act.

¶36

In view of the above, the L.A. Appeal No.1 of 2022 is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge in L.A. Case No. 2 of 2016 is interfered with to the extent that the Collector is directed to make payment of interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date on which possession of the land is taken to the date of payment of such enhanced amount to the Court. It is further provided that if such enhance amount or paid thereof, is not paid within 1 (one) year from the date of possession, the court can further direct payment of 15% interest per annum on the enhanced amount which has not been calculated from the date of expiry of 1 (one) year from the date of possession as per Section 28 of the L.A. Act.

¶37

The assessment and calculation should be done and completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

Accordingly, L.A. Appeal No. 1 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Smt Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. v. District Collector, Serchhip District and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chhunthangi and 16 Ors. v. District Collector, Serchhip District and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiaithanga Vs Gs Pauva

James P Dawngliana Vs State of Mizoram

Raymond Zothanchama Vs The State of Mizoram

Lalchhanhlua Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Laldinthara and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and 10 Ors.

Dothuama Sailo Vs Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch and Anr.