MASTAWKA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

(2.) By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A Case No. 3 of 2013by which the reference case was dismissed as being time barred and at the same time being hit by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 has issued a Notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land for widening of road to two lane standard from 11/55 (Lengpui) to 130/00 (Tripura border). After, observing all required formalities, the respondent No. 1 published the Supplementary Draft Award No. 1 of 2010 in respect of appellants land. The said Supplementary Draft Award was also approved by the Government of Mizoram by the letter dated 13.01.2011 for a sum of Rs. 9,57,23,921/-. While making the Supplementary Draft Award No. 1 of 2010, the District Collector had failed to include interest and solatium and therefore, being aggrieved the appellants had filed the reference case before the reference Court which was registered as L.A Case No. 6 of 2012. However, the learned reference Court had dismissed the reference case being L.A Case No. 6 of 2012 on the grounds of limitation and that the same was hit by section 31(2) of the Act which is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the prayer for inclusion of interest and solatium of the Award No. 1 of 2010 is mandatory under the L.A Act of 1894.