MANAGER POWER GRID. NER LUANGMUAL Vs. THINLAIHNEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing of the judgment and order dated 22 -3 -2006 passed in Money Suit No. 8 of 2002 and judgment and order dated 3 -9 -2008 passed in RFA No. 5 of 2006 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and Additional District Magistrate (J) respectively.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 9 are the owners of the lands at Durtlang and the petitioners herein after serving notice under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with a promise to make payment of compensation for all damages to be duly assessed by the competent authority installed 132 KV line by causing damage to crops and various fruit bearing trees belonging to the respondents. Felled trees damages crops and fruit bearing trees planted in the lands in the respondents all were surveyed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and accordingly assessed the compensation for such damages and submitted to the petitioners herein for payment vide letter No. F. 14011/6/97 -DC(A)/217 dated 4.1.2000. In spite of assessment of compensation for the damages to the crops and the fruit bearing trees and other valuable saplings, the petitioners sat tight over the matter without disbursing the compensation to the respondents, which prompted the respondents to serve notice through their advocate on 11.2.2002. Some amount of compensation, however, after service of the notice was deposited with the respondent No. 10 for disbursement to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Despite service of various notices the petitioners did not care to deposit the balance amount with the respondent No. 10. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 10 herein without serving any notice whatsoever to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, the land owners and giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to them illegally revised the compensation as already assessed on account of damage to crops, felling of fruit bearing and other valuable trees by adopting a new rate called "upset price". It is claimed that such revision of compensation by not issuing any notice whatsoever to the land owners, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein is illegal and not sustainable under the law. For non -payment of the balance compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 10 communicated vide letter dated 4th January, 2000, the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 as plaintiffs filed a Money Suit No. 8 of 2002 before the Court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl for a money decree as assessed by the respondent No. 10 herein communicated vide letter dated 4 -1 -2000 with interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the decretal sum along with cost of the suit. The petitioners herein contested the suit. The Trial Court framed three issues on the basis of the pleadings and after recording the evidence decided the issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and decreed the suit in respect of the balance amount of compensation as assessed by respondent No. 10 and communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 along with 6% interest per annum from the date of judgment until payment.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 9 resisted the petition by filing an affidavit -in -opposition. In their affidavit they contended that they are entitled to due compensation on account of damage of their crops and fruit bearing and other valuable trees etc. by the petitioners white installing 132 KV line over their lands as assessed by the respondent No. 10 and communicated vide letter dated 4.1.2000 to the petitioners for payment. But the re -assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 31.3.2000 is illegal inasmuch as such reassessment was made without giving proper notice and due hearing. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly set aside the re -assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 31.3.2000. Both the judgments of the Courts below do not appear to have suffered any error or illegality and accordingly both the judgments should be maintained. There is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution and accordingly, pray for disposal of the petition.