LAWS(GAU)-2014-9-46

UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHENDRA NATH AND ORS.

Decided On September 22, 2014
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Mahendra Nath And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Reference Cases No. 12/2010, 14/2010, 15/2010, 16/2010, 18/2010, 19/2010, 20/2010, 21/2010, 22/2010, 23/2010, 24/2010, 25/2010, 26/2010, 27/2010, 28/2010, 29/2010, 30/2010, 31/2010, 32/2010, 33/2010, 34/2010, 35/2010, 36/2010, 37/2010, 38/2010, 39/2010, 41/2010, 42/2010, 43/2010, 44/2010, 45/2010, 46/2010, 47/2010, 48/2010, 50/2010, 51/2010, 52/2010 and 53/2010, arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 04/2007. Reference Cases No. 13/2010, 17/2010, 40/2010 and 49/2010 were also disposed of by the said judgment dated 22.11.2012. It is submitted that though appeals have been preferred in these Reference Cases also, they are not yet ready for hearing. This batch of appeals has been heard analogously and is being disposed of by this common judgment. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') in Land Acquisition Case No. 04/2007 was issued by the Collector, Kamrup, on 08.08.2008, indicating that about 248 Bighas 0 Katha 3 Lechas of land at Village-Hahara, Mouza-Pubpar under Kamalpur Revenue Circle was likely to be needed for construction of Headquarter of 33rd Bn. SSB. Thereafter, Section 6 notification was issued on 18.02.2009 acquiring 186 Bighas 2 Kathas and 1 Lecha of land. The Collector assessed the valuation of the acquired land at Rs. 2.30 lakhs only per Bigha. The claimants accepted the awarded sum under protest and submitted applications to the Collector for referring the matters to Court by claiming Rs. 10 Lakhs per Bigha and additional compensation, solatium, 9% interest on the enhanced amount and other reliefs as admissible in law. Thus, 42 reference cases, in all, came to be referred by the Collector, Kamrup to the learned District Judge, Kamrup, under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation. Accordingly, Reference Case Nos. 12/2010 to 53/2010 were registered in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati.

(2.) The Collector, Kamrup and the Commandant of the 33rd Bn., SSB, were arrayed as Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in the said reference proceedings.

(3.) The Collector, Kamrup did not file any written objection. In the common objection filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 covering all the reference cases, it was stated that the acquisition was not for any benefit of a private individual or an industrial or a business house and that general public is the direct beneficiary of the acquisition. The compensation as suggested by the Revenue Departments was deposited and there was no question of any further liability. It was also pleaded that the claimants have failed to provide breakup of the amount/quantum of claim including Jirat.