LexSTATE OF MIZORAM versus BIAKCHHAWNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MIZORAM v. BIAKCHHA WNA OCTOBER 7, 1994 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 189*-Sections 18, 19, 20 and 31. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section <>--Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Objection for higher compensatio!t-Mandatory compliance of Sec- tions 18 to 20 is sin quo non for Court to proceed thereupon. A B c The Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published, acquiring the land in District Aizawl. The respondent filed objection which were overruled. The collector made his award. The respon· dent recived the compensation nnder protest and filed an application bnt D no reference to Civil Court was made u/s 18 of the Act. The respondent filed the Civil suit and a decree was passed. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the judgement and decree. The High Court dismissed the appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgement of the High Court. E Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, envisages that on making an application u/s 18, making a reference u/s 18 of the Act in the manner prescribed u/s 19, it is mandatory and sine quo non for the F Court to proceed 'thereupon' since it gets jurisdiction to issue a notice to the persons specifying. the date to appear before them. Since this is a special procedure provided in the Act, by necessary implication, the Civil Court u/s 9 of the Civil Procedure Code has been prohibited to take cognizance of the objections arising under the Act for determination or the G compensation for the land acquired under the Act. A valid order or referene u/s 18 Is sine quo non for a Civil Court or original jurisdiction or special judicial officer specially appointed to take cognizance or the objec- tion. [425-D, F, 424-F] 2. At the time of disposing of the award proceeding, the Land H 421 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Acquisition Collector or the Court on reference u/s 18 of the Act are required by statutory commendations to follow the substance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as contained in para 3 of the Notification issued by the Governor on 13th Aug., 1987. It is seen that the procedure prescribed in para 3 of the Notiliation is not in derogation of B c the mandatory compliance u/ss. 18 to 20, and Civil Conrt does not get valid and legal ju¥isdiction to take cognizance of the objection for higher com- pensation unless the procedure prescribed in sections 18, 19, 20 and 31 are complied with and adhered to. [ 425-G-H, 426-A] 3. The High Court and Civil Court committed a clear and manifest error of law in decreeing the suit. The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside as being nullity. [ 426-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7430 of 1994. D From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.93 of the Gauhati High Court in F.A. No.l of 1991. K. Lahiri and Mrs. H. Wahi for the Appellant. K.K. Venugopal and R. Sathish for the Respondent. E The following order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, F 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the Gazette by the State of Mizoram on 13th August, 1987 acquiring the land in District Aizawl for providing accommodation to the Assam Rifles. The respondent filed ob- jections and ultimately the objections were overruled. The Collector made his Award No. 4/1988 on 26th August, 1988. The respondent was entitled G the compensation of Rs. 5,34,748. The respondent received the compensa- tion under protest and on 29th September, 1988, filed an application but ultimately the Collector did not make any reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The respondent filed the Civil Suit No. 2/1989 in the Court of Deputy H Commissioner, Aizawl which endorsed for disposal to the Additional Dis- STATE OF MIZORAM v. BIAKCHHA WNA 423 trict Magistrate. After the receipt of the notice the appellant objected to A the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit. The Additional District Magistrate in his Judgment overruled the objection and granted the decree declaring that "the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 26,39,286 as compensation for compulsory acquisition of his lands described in the suit and shall get the decree to that effect". The appellant B had challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the Judgment and Decree in the High C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.