DANS ENERGY PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14.09.2016 the District Collector/Magistrate, South District, Namchi passed the impugned order on one of the issues raised by the Respondent no.3 in his complaint dated 07.04.2011. By the impugned order the Petitioner was directed to release payment of compensation of damages immediately to the tune of Rs.10,83,050/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty three thousand and fifty) only to the concerned Department for payment. It was further ordered that if payment is not made within the period of three months from the date of the impugned order the Petitioner is liable to pay interest on the total amount of compensation as per the rate under the relevant rules and norms. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order and it is prayed that it be quashed. The Petitioner's contention is that the District Collector/Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to decide upon the claim for compensation sought for by the Respondent no.3 as the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had already been completed. It was pointed out that the jurisdictional issue was raised by the Petitioner on 09.06.2016 itself when the Petitioner filed written statement/objection to the claim made by the Respondent no.3 before the District Collector and on being so directed. The learned District Collector however, did not decide upon the jurisdictional issue raised and instead proceeded to decide upon the merits of the claims. The Respondent no.3 had filed a complaint on 07.04.2011 before the District Collector. However, the record reveals that it was only on 13.02.2016 that the complaint was taken up and finally decided on 14.09.2016. The Writ Petition was preferred on 20.03.2017. The State-Respondent as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3 fairly concede that the District Collector did not have the authority to decide a civil dispute of this nature and more so when the Petitioner has keenly contested its liability.

(2.) The Respondent no.3 who is also personally present in Court therefore, desires to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievance. However, the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3 submits that he may be thrown out on the ground of limitation. It is seen that the Respondent no.3 has proceeded before an authority which admittedly did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

(3.) A perusal of the two reports of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Namchi sub-division, South Sikkim under the signature of the Divisional Engineer and the Assistant Engineer and the damage assessment made by the Revenue Authorities does reflect that the merits of the claim made by the Respondent no.3 must be examined by a Court of competent jurisdiction.