Shri Kali Dass v. Land Acquisition Collector And Anr. S

Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)

It is not disputed by the parties that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by another Bench of this Court in RFA No. 196 of 1999 and other connected matters. This appeal also arises out of the award passed in Land Reference case No. 53 of 1987 and other connected matters by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 6.3.1999 All the appeals and cross objections were heard together but it appears that by mistake, this appeal was not listed alongwith the other connected matters. All the said appeals were disposed of by a learned Single Judge and the matters were remanded to the learned District Judge for fresh decision. The operative portion of the judgment dated 30.11.2009 reads as follows:-

“The method adopted by the learned Reference Court for awarding compensation on the basis of the quality of the land cannot be accepted. I hold that the land is meant for commercial exploitation and acquired after a conscious decision having been taken by the ACC for setting up a cement plant, factory, offices, etc. The evidence of RW-1 when considered in its entirety as also the Notification(s) issued under the Act and facts noticed by the Collector are clear and unequivocal on the point. There were three stages in the acquisition process; first when the Company requested for permission for prospecting in the area and thereafter permission of the State Government sought for and was granted. The second stage was the actual prospecting and testing of the material to determine its suitability for the purposes of being used for Cement Manufacturing etc. Third, after such successful testing, the Company applied to the Central Government for licence(s) and permissions etc. Considering all these aspects in their totality, compensation cannot be determined on the basis of the agricultural quality of the land but has to be adjudicated on the basis of its potentiality.

This exercise having not been undertaken and wrong principles of law applied by the learned District Judge, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the judgment in appeal and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, for decision afresh in accordance with law. While ordering this remand, I am conscious to the fact that the parties have already suffered one remand which was also on the basis of wrong consideration of the principles of law applicable for determination of the value of the land by the Reference Court. It is with reluctance that I am constrained to remand the cases. However, the interest of both the parties would be safeguarded if time bound directions are issued to the learned Reference Court to decide the cases within a time bound fame. These appeals and cross objections are accordingly disposed of. A direction is issued to the learned District Judge to readmit the references on the record of the Court and to dispose them of in accordance with law. The Court shall of-course act with due expedition and shall dispose of the cases not later than 30th April, 2010. This direction is issued keeping in view the fact that the reference petitions date back to the year 1987. Needless to add that no undue adjournment(s) shall be granted to any party. There shall be no order as to costs. A direction is issued to the Registry that the entire record of the proceedings be sent back to the Court of learned District Judge forthwith.

Parties shall appear before him on 11th December, 2009, where-after the cases will be taken up for further proceedings.”

The present appeal is also disposed of in the same terms except that now the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 15.1.2010 The learned District Judge shall connect this matter with the other matters which have already been remanded to him and dispose of all these cases by April, 2010, as already directed. No order as to costs.

January 1, 2010 (Deepak Gupta)

(m) Judge