UNION OF INDIA Vs. COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Payment of compensation by the Railways, against requisition of land belonging to the respondents more than half a century ago in 1945 under the Defence of India Act, 1939 forms the subject matter of this writ petition and appeal.

(2.) The starting point is 9.4.1945 when Collector requisitioned land measuring 9 Bighas 4 Kathas 5 Lechas including 2 Bighas 18 Lechas belonging to Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 under the Defence of India Act, 1939, for Raiilway Staff Quarters at Silpukhuri, Guwahati. On 17.8.1951, the said requisitioned land was de-requisitioned for the purpose of acquisition and the possession of the land was retained by the Railway authority. Seven years thereafter on 19.5.58 the Collector made assessment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per Bigha per year as requisition compensation without any agreement and the said amount was paid upto 31.3.63. After seventeen years by his order dated 31.10.75 the Collector reassessed annual requisition compensation of the said land at the rate of Rs. 1875.00 per Bigha per year with effect from 1.4.63 to 31.5.76 in respect of the land of the Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8. The Railway authority handed over the possession of the land of the Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on 18.8.18. The Collector by order dated 7.2.79 made an award for the said land of the Respondent Nos. 6,7 & 8 for the period 1.4.76 to 18.8.78. The Railway authorities failed to pay the awarded money inspite of repeated demands As the Railway authority did not deposit the awarded amount, the A.D.C., Kamrup wrote a letter on 20.11.80 to the Railway authority to deposit the money to avoid Bakijai Proceedings. Thereafter, as, the Railway authority failed to deposit the amount a Bakijai case being Bakijai Case No.13/82 under the provisions of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913, was started and a notice under Section 7 was served to which the Railway authorities filed objection. The said objection was heard and rejected on 31.1.1983 with a direction to issue notice under Rule 77 of to said Act. Against the said order dated 31.11.83 an appeal being Bakijai Appeal No. 3/83 under Section 51 of the Act was filed by the Railway authorities before the Collector of Kamrup, but the said appeal was heard and dismissed by the Collector by order dated 9.5.1983. As against the said order of the Collector dated 9.5.83 the Railway authority did not file a Revision u/s 53 of the said Act before the Assam Board of Revenue, but filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Rule No. 722/83. On 18,7.90 the said Civil Rule No. 722/83 was finally disposed of with a direction to approach the Civil Court within three weeks. However, a review petition in respect of the above order dated 18.7.90 was filed with a prayer to allow the Railway authorities to approach the Assam Board of Revenue in addition to the liberty given to approach the Civil Court which was also rejected by order dated 31.7.90 passed by this Court, lie Railway authority instead of approaching the Civil Court, filed a petition under Sec. 53 of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 before the Assam Board of Revenue without any application for condonation of delay. The said petition was registered as Case No. 2 BA/90. The Assam Board of Revenue by order dated 78.11.90 dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter, the railway authority filed yet another writ petition for the same subject matter which was registered as Civil Rule No. 241/91, This Court on 25.3.91 passed an ex-parte order and set aside the order of the Assam Board of Revenue dated 28.11.90 passed in case No. 2 BA/90 directing to decide the case on merits. It was challenged by the respondents Nos. 6, 7 & 8 who filed a review petition of the order dated 25.3.91 passed by this Court. By order dated 18.11.91 the review petition was allowed and the order dated 25.3.91 was set aside. Oh 12.12.91 this Court directed the Railway authorities to make interim payment at the rate of Rs, 500/- per Bigha per year from 1963 to 197$ which the Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and it received. It was on 25.2.93 that Civil Rule No. 241/93 came up for admission and the same was dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal.

(3.) The above-narration of facts, itself reveals a tell-tele story. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on 25.2.1993 observed