GANDHAMOYEE DEVI Vs. COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP, GAUHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three -tier land acquisition proceedings took 21 years and 6 months to conclude. Those responsible for the inordinate delay must be up and doing to see that such remiss do not recur in future. If such procrastination, apathy and negligence continue it would culminate in the destruction of the court system without which no democracy can survive. Values in all spheres of life and society are dwindling, crashing down and with it the money value. One is just to glance at the Price Index to notice how prices have gone up since 1960 (the year of acquisition). The relevant Notification Under Section 4(1) was made on 9 -3 -1960, so the compensation has to be pegged to the market value as on that date. Of course about 22 years have rolled by since, thanks to delay which has come to stay permanently in the administrative and forensic processes of our land. One of us lamented in similar tune in F. A. No. 117 of 1966, Collector of Kamrup v. Rabiran, decided on 4 -8 -1976, It seems that no force can activate our administrative and forensic process to make them ambulatory. Now as late as in 1981 we can perhaps do no more than look towards Heaven with folded hands Who suffer? Surely, the poor litigants Is change in law imperative? We have no doubt in our mind.

(2.) THE appellant is a widow. She preferred this appeal Under Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, "the Act" for short, against the Judgment and Award/Decree of the Acquisition Judge dismissing the claims of the Appellant (i) for enhancement of the market value of her acquired land and (ii) for a declaration that Tek Bahadur, who had been held by the Collector as a Tenant in respect of a portion of the acquired land, was not a tenant entitled to any compensation. A parcel of land measuring 10 Bighas 4 Kathas and 5 Lechas at village Japorigog, Mouza Beltola, Gauhati, owned by late Ambika Prasad Goswami, husband of the appellant was acquired by the State for New Gauhati Railway Marshalling Ward. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was duly published on 9 -3 -1960 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 5 -10 -1960. On receipt of the notice the appellant appeared before the Collector and put forward Her claim. On inquiries the Collector found the appellant, wife of the recorded owner (late Ambika Goswami) as the person interested in the acquired land. The Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,500/ - per bigha, that is, Rs. 500/ -per Katha, as the market value of the land. The Collector held that Sri Tek Bahadur was a raiyat in respect of 6 Bighas 4 Kathas and 5 Lechas of the acquired land covered by Dag Nos. 322 and 282 in K. P. Patta No. 185 and awarded 1/4th of compensation in respect of the land held by him as a tenant which came to Rs. 6,892.81. He prepared the statement of compensation showing the appellant as the person entitled to compensation. The Collector communicated the award and the appellant claimed for reference Under Sections 18 and 31 of "the Act". She claimed that the market value was Rupees 3,000/ - per katha, Tek Bahadur was not her tenant and so he was not entitled to any apportionment of the compensation. There was a technical error in her application in quoting the Mouza of the land. However, she had correctly stated the Land Acquisition Case No., full description of the acquired land and all other material particulars, While submitting his report the Sub -Deputy Collector stated that the acquired land stood in the name of the appellant's husband. On rectification of the technical defect the reference was made by the Collector. In the letter of reference the appellant was shown as the only person entitled to compensation. The Collector sought to Justify the award of market value of the land.

(3.) ON reference, the civil court took cognizance of the same and caused it to be registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1969, No objection was raised by the Collector about the locus standi of the appellant. Tek Bahadur appeared to contest the claim but had to admit that the appellant was his landlady and she was owner of the acquired land. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant and six documents were exhibited, The Collector examined two witnesses and proved some documents, Tek Bahadur deposed. On conclusion of trial the learned Judge dismissed the claim of the appellant. The learned Judge held thats