Dismissed

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Mar 2022WP(C)/86/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging a land acquisition award, holding it was not maintainable due to an alternative statutory remedy under the Nagaland Land Act. The court termed the filing an abuse of process given prior non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Rs. 50,000 costs awarded to respondent No. 3.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and… — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC020002422020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 86/2020

¶5

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE B - WING 4TH FLOOR SENA BHAWAN NEW DELHI

¶6

2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS

¶7

SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI

¶8

3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶9

PROJECT SEWAK(GREF)

¶10

PIN - 931714 C/O 99 APO VERSUS

¶11

1:THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶12

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶13

3:ANIE PAIRA W/O LATE KUMAR PAIRA R/O MIDLAND DIMAPUR DIMAPUR NAGALAND

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : YANGER WATI Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶18

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yangerwati. C.G.C.

¶19

For the respondents : Ms. Livika, Govt. Advocate, Nagaland. Mr. Imti Longjem, Advocate.

¶20

Date of hearing : 10.03.2022

¶21

Date of Order : 10.03.2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

10-03-2022

¶24

Heard Mr. Yangerwati, the learned C.G.C. appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Livika, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Imti Longjem the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶25

This present writ petition is filed assailing the award dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in Land Acquisition Case No. Rev. 17/2005-D/2012/1441 under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965). By way of the aforesaid award, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur directed the Union of India (Project SEWAK) to pay the respondent herein a compensation of Rs 7,69,45,120/within 30 days from the date of the award for acquiring 1.92 acres of the land of the respondent No. 3, Mrs. Anie Paira located at Midland, Dimapur.

¶26

As the said award was not implemented, the respondent No. 3, Mrs. Anie

¶27

Page No.# 3/5 Paira preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 114(K)/2014 before this Court and this Court by Judgment & Order dated 15.05.2017, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Project Sewak to pay to the petitioner, through the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur the compensation amount of Rs. 7,69,45,120/- along with interest as awarded by the order dated 25.10.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. Rev. 17/2005-D/2012/1441, within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was further provided that if the Project SEWAK fails to do so, within the time framed given, the Government of Nagaland should pay the same and get reimbursed from them.

¶28

Subsequent to this, the Union of India preferred a review petition being Civil Review Petition No. 1(K)/2018 seeking for review of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 114(K)/2014. Such review was sought on the ground amongst other, that after passing of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2017, the review petitioner came to learn that the valuation of the land is much lower as determined by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in his award dated 25.10.2012. It was the case of the review petitioner that they had got information from the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur that rate of compensation for the land of respondent No. 1 would be much lesser than Rs. 800/-per sq. ft. as it was determined by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. Such review petition was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 21.06.2018.

¶29

Thereafter, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the review petition as aforesaid, the present writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 02(K)/2019 along with I.A.(Civil) No. 10/2019. Subsequently, such Writ Appeal was withdrawn by the present petitioners with liberty being given to them to file an appropriate appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 passed by

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

this Court in WP(C) No. 114(K)/2014.

¶32

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal being WA No.04(K)/2019 assailing the judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 114(K)/2014. Such Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 with a direction to the petitioners /appellants in the writ appeal to make the payment of the compensation amount, by depositing the compensation amount awarded as per the Award dated 25.10.2012, with the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

¶33

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with Section 12(1) of the Acquisition Act, 1965, held that the present writ petitioners/appellants therein, if aggrieved with the fixation of rate for acquisition of land, an alternative statutory remedy has been made available for redressal of the same. It was further held in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench that Section 2(b) defines “Court” to mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and includes the Court of any Additional Deputy Commissioner etc. The Hon’ble Division Bench came to a conclusion that the appellants cannot be allowed to by-pass the statutory provisions as the Award has been made under the Acquisition Act, 1965.

¶34

So far relating to the market value, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court came to a conclusion that the consensus decision on the value of the land fixed cannot be challenged unless it is arbitrary or in violation of the law.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the present petitioners preferred a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No. 635/2021 under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Apex

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

Court, which was dismissed on withdrawal on 23.07.2021.

¶38

Even after the determination of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid, the present petitioner has once again filed this writ petition challenging the same vary award dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in Land Acquisition Case No. Rev.17/2005-D/2012/1441. The fact remains that this Court as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench has directed the present petitioners to pay the awarded amount with the interest, however, it is stated that such order is still not complied with, instead the petitioner has preferred this present writ petition. The entire facts and circumstances leading the filing of this present petition as narrated hereinabove, according to this Court, is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. It is not expected from litigant like Union of India in filing such petition like the present one while ignoring and non complying the judgment dated 5.07.2017 passed in WP(C)/114(K)/2014 and the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal being WA No.04(K)/2019.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench and in view of the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 1965, the petitioners are having alternative remedy and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid discussion and decision, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent No. 3, Mrs. Anie Paira.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 2 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

Mr. Yamlao Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Mr. Inpi Konyak Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Mr. Moaba Konyak Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Shri. Moarenba Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Thejangulie Vs Christian Institute of Health Sciences and Research(Cihsr) and 4 Ors.