STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. R ROMAWIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9 -5 -2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kolosib in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2012 decreeing the suit for Rs. 1,48,13,593/ - in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by way of compensation for acquiring their lands.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint may be noticed at the outset. The District Collector, Kolosib by the notification dated 4 -1 -2006 had proceeded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) to acquire some lands for the purpose of widening NH -154 and had asked the landowners including the respondents to report to him for assessment of the market value of their lands. Ultimately, the Collector passed the Awards No. 1, 2 and 3. As the Awards did not tally with the assessment, the respondents received the compensation under protest. Aggrieved by this, they approached the Departmental authority for re -assessment of the compensation: the authority, having found the acquired lands to be under -valued, made additional compensation for the plaintiffs/respondents ("the respondents" for short). It would appear that the District Collector refused to pay the additional compensation. On the other hand, the State -respondents took steps for evicting the respondents from the acquired lands, which prompted the respondents to file the suit seeking a decree for directing the appellants to pay the additional compensation to them with solatium @ 30% with interest @ 12%. The suit was initially contested by the State -appellants, but when they failed to file their written statement in time, the suit was proceeded with by the trial court and decreed ex -parte.

(3.) NONE appears for the respondents despite proper service of notice upon them vide the Registry note dated 24 -1 -2013. The main contention of Mr. Lalsawirema, the learned counsel for the State -appellants is that the respondents had an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them and having failed to take recourse to this statutory remedy, the suit instituted by them before a civil court was not maintainable: the learned Senior Civil Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining and decreeing the suit. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. I have earlier referred to the pleadings of the respondents, and those pleadings leave no shadow of doubt that all the respondents had participated in the land acquisition proceeding in question and were awarded compensation.