SMTI HIMANI SEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri BC Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 - Collector as well as Shri DK Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition, which was instituted in the year of 2012, a prayer has been made for release of compensation both for acquisition and requisition of a certain portion of land at Maidamgaon, Guwahati. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25/10/1976, 44 bighas of land (approx.) was initiated for acquisition out of which subsequently, 3 bighas were acquired. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Das submits that though at the time of structuring of the writ petition the details were not properly placed before this Court, he has instructions to submit that so far as the acquisition compensation is concerned, the same has been paid. It is further the submission made that for the period of 26/10/1976 to 25/10/1986, the requisition compensation has also been paid and it is only for the subsequent period till the date of de-requisition i.e 20/12/1999 that no amount has been paid. In other words, the payment for compensation for requisition is for the period from 26/10/1986 to 20/12/1999. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the notice made under Sec. 80 of the CPC and also the chart annexed thereto. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the minutes of meeting with the Chief Secretary. As per the learned Senior Counsel, the requisition compensation is amounting to Rs.86,56,123.00.

(3.) Shri S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Collector however submits that the writ petition was itself instituted by misrepresentation of facts and suppression of materials. It is submitted that though the cause title would suggest that the compensation for acquisition, no such issue is pending. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioners by demonstrating that the notice under Sec. 80 of the CPC was in the year 2009 whereafter no suit was instituted and it is only on 25/6/2012 that the present writ petition has been filed.