KARMA TSHERING BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 10/7/2023, disposing two connected writ petitions, was primarily on the opinion that the statement of compensation computed on 31/5/2013 was not an award and the State respondents had failed to explain the law under which compensation was computed and prepared.

(2.) The impugned judgment holding that the statement of compensation computed on 31/5/2013 was in fact the award, is based on the premise that there was no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, Act of 1894) under which such statements of compensation which had all the trappings of an award could be computed. This was incorrect. The relevant provision was not examined as it was not placed by the parties. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere with the impugned judgment for reasons stated below.

(3.) Writ Petition (C) no. 32 of 2018 preferred by Karma Tshering Bhutia (the appellant herein) was dismissed and Writ Petition (C) 43 of 2022 preferred by College of Agriculture Engineering and Post Harvest Technology (for short, CAEPHT) (the respondent no.4 herein), was allowed.