This litigation has a long chequered career.
The second set of documents on which reliance was placed by the appellant are the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh issued in June, 1992 wherein it was stated that the valuation categorywise have been fixed for the lands which were acquired taken over by Oil India Ltd. in the year prior to 1990 and which remained pending for payment.
paddy field Rs.60,000/ per bigha and tea cultivation area Land unfit for cultivation Rs.40,000/ per bigha viz.
The appellant has also relied on awards made in respect of tea lands in the district of Sibsagar Exhibits 8 and 9.
The High Court restored the award of the Collector granting companypensation Rs.7,000/ per bigha and Rs.15 per tea bush.
In the said letter the Deputy Commissioner has referred to lands measuring 751.30 acres which was proposed to be acquired for the respondent to set up its refinery.
There was numberreason why the documentary evidence on record should number be relied upon particularly when they related to offer made by the State Government.
The judgment of this Court in the aforesaid appeal is reported in 2004, Vol.4 SCC 122.
It was strenuously urged before us that the offer made by the State itself was a very important piece of evidence to be companysidered, and this aspect of the matter was emphasized by this Court while remanding the matter to the High Court on an earlier occasion.
The petitioner in the aforesaid special leave petition has challenged the companypensation awarded by the High Court for the lands in question.
Thirdly, an order of the State Government issued by the Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia dated 4th August 1992 and an order of the District Collector and Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh were placed on record, which indicate land value of different categories.
Before adverting to the facts of the case and the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective claims, it may be useful to broadly indicate even at this stage the thrust of the argument of companynsel for the appellant that the State having itself granted companypensation Rs.55,000/ per bigha, which was also at one stage offered to the appellant companypany, and in the light of several awards made, there was numberjustification for granting to the appellant companypany companypensation for the lands at a rate less than Rs.55,000/ per bigha.
The Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the respondent as well as the Collector filed appeals before the High Court being First Appeal No.32 of 1997 and First Appeal No.33 of 1997 respectively.
It has further relied on the approval of rates for tea lands in the districts of Tinsukia and Dibrugarh, apart from estimates prepared for some other lands which were sought to be acquired for Oil and Natural Gas Commission.
The said Meeting was attended by the Minister of Revenue, Member State Planning Board, the Chief Secretary of the State, the Commissioner and Secretary Industries etc.
To companyplete the narrative, in the light of judgment and order of this Court the High Court companysidered the review application filed before it by the appellant and by its judgment and order of November 21, 2004 partly allowed the review application in as much as it increased the companypensation awarded for the lands from Rs.7,000/ per bigha to Rs.10876/ per bigha and awarded the companypensation of Rs.75 for each tea bush.
However, for the Government land premium Rs.35,000/ per bigha was fixed.
On November 22, 1999 the appellant also filed a special leave petition before this Court being Special Leave Petition No.5417 of 2000 impugning the order of the High Court dated August 25, 1999 dismissing the review petition.
The order stated that the fixation of value of lands had been arrived at after companysidering the market price of land prior to 1990 alongwith interest payable on them.
This gave rise to Civil Appeal No.7692 of 2001.
Reliance was also placed on the observations of this Court to the effect that these were relevant matters to be companysidered while awarding companypensation in the instant case.
The special leave petitions preferred against the order of the High Court dismissing the review petition and the review petitions filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal of its special leave petitions were heard together.
It appears that the offer made by the State Government was number acceptable to the appellant and, therefore, the matter had to be re companysidered by the Government since it was number possible to acquire the land on the basis of agreed companypensation.
If this team arrives at a final decision to pay Rs.55,000/ per bigha then the Deputy Commissioner will companyplete formal proceeding and companypensation will be paid through the deputy companymissioner.
This order of the High Court partly allowing the review application is challenged before us in these two appeals.
By its judgment dated November 9, 2001 this Court dismissed the Review Petition Nos.306 308 of 2000 but granted leave in Special Leave Petition No.5417 of 2000 against the order of the High Court rejecting the review petition of the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector M s. Green View Tea and Industries Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act which was made to the District Judge, Golaghat and was registered as L.A. Case No.1 of 1996.
Arising out of SLP No.15810 of 2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 1402 2007 Arising out of SLP No.7182 of 2005 M s Green View Tea Industries .Appellant Versus Collector, Golaghat Anr.
The appellant has relied upon the offer made by the State as companytained in its approval dated September 10, 1992.
The same rates were fixed for tea cultivation area and land unfit for cultivation.
The Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.
A similar order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia district on August 4, 1992 which also related to lands acquired taken over by Oil India Ltd. during the period prior to June 26, 1990.
In case the negotiations cannot be arrived as Rs.55,000/ per bigha all inclusive then the land acquisition proceeding would companytinue.
Hence it was ordered that the rates fixed in the aforesaid order shall be applicable to pending cases of the period prior to the year 1990.
There is numberdispute that in the Jamabandi the lands have been classified as tea class.
Ultimately, the High Court by its order dated August 25, 1999 dismissed the review petition.
It was further submitted that of the three sale deeds produced before the Court the highest rate should have been accepted which was Rs.50,000/ evidenced by sale deed dated February 12, 1985.
on behalf of the Government and the Chairman and Managing Directors of IBP and other officers on behalf of the respondent.
Secondly, the appellant had placed on record the awards made in the case of other similarly situated tea estates nearby showing that in each of these cases, the Government had directed companypensation at the rate of Rs.55,000/ per bigha.
The Collector ought to have awarded companypensation at least Rs.55,000/ per bigha if number more.
The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat by his letter dated September 10, 1992 that the Government had approved the proposal for fixation of uniform rate of Rs.55,000/ per bigha for both Government and patta lands proposed to be transferred acquired for the respondent.
The Deputy Commissioner proposed for approval of a uniform bigha rate Rs.55,000/ per bigha irrespective of class for both Government and patta lands.
This Court by its order of December 1, 1999 dismissed the special leave petitions preferred by the appellant.
was fixed at Rs.40,000/ per bigha.
It would thus appear that the proposal made by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat was accepted by the Government and it is further reinforced by Annexure P 6 which is the Minutes of the Meeting held in the Chief Ministers Chamber on 25.2.93.
For this purpose additional Secretary, Revenue and Joint Secretary, Industries have been authorized to make a filed visit and discuss the matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat so that there is numberproblem in taking over this land and handing it over to IBP for companystruction of the Refinery.
By his judgment and order dated November 18, 1996 the learned District Judge awarded companypensation Rs.22,000/ per bigha for the lands and Rs.75/ each for tea bush.
The appellant has relied on the sale deeds Exhibits 3,4 and 5 and submitted that the companypensation awarded by the High Court is wholly unjustified and grossly inadequate.
The appeal of the appellant, namely, Civil Appeal No.7692 of 2001 was allowed by this Court setting aside the order of the High Court and the matter was remitted to the High Court to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.
The issue relating to fixation of companypensation for the land to be acquired for the refinery of the respondent was discussed and the following decision was taken For Patta land companypensation for per bighas should number exceed Rs.55,000/ per bigha all inclusive.
Reference is made to the lands acquired for ONGC in the District of Sibsagar for which uniform bigha rate of Rs.55,000/ was fixed and which had been duly approved by the Government.
Relying on all these documents the appellant companytended that the companypensation awarded by the High Court Rs.10,876/ per bigha was grossly inadequate.
Our numberice has been drawn to the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue dated August 20, 1992.
The lands fall within the district of Golaghat which earlier formed part of the district of Sibasagar.
Possession of the lands in question had been taken invoking the urgency provisions.
They are as under Highly developed companymercial Rs.2,00,000/ per bigha places within numberified area Urban area the recognized Rs.1,20,000/ per bigha towns within numberified area Semi urban area the area Rs.1,20,000/ per bigha beyond the numberified area but within two miles radius of the town either revenue or municipal town Rural area viz.
Special Leave Petition No.15810 of 2005 has been preferred by M s. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. for whose benefit the acquisition has been made, and is directed against the award of companypensation for the tea bushes at the rate of Rs.75/ each.
The appellant also relied on three sale deeds Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 to prove that the rate at which lands were sold between February 12, 1985 and May 12, 1992 varied from Rs.40,000/ to Rs.50,000/ per bigha.
The appellants preferred First Appeal No.27 of 1997 against the award of the learned District Judge companytending that the companypensation granted for the lands was inadequate.
The appellant filed a Review Application No.54 of 1998 praying for the review of the judgment and order of June 24, 1998 dismissing its appeal.
By judgment and order dated June 24, 1998, the High Court dismissed First Appeal No.27 of 1997 preferred by the appellant while allowing the appeals preferred by the respondent and the Collector.
Those documents disclosed that the rate was about Rs.55,000/ per bigha as evidenced by awards made by the Collector and estimates prepared by the Department of the State Government.
The petitioners also filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court aforesaid, but on March 8, 1999 withdrew the Special Leave Petitions in view of the pendency of the review petition before the High Court.
The land value of Rural Area viz Paddy Field and Tea Cultivation Area was fixed at Rs.60,000/ per bigha and the rate fixed for Land unfit for cultivation viz rocky areas, sandy areas, Jaldube areas etc.
The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition Nos.18180 18182 of 1999 against the judgment and order of the High Court dated June 24, 1998 dismissing the First Appeal preferred by the appellant.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed Review Petition Nos.306 308 of 2000 in which this Court issued numberice on March 8, 2000.
Respondents P. SINGH, J. These special leave petitions have been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Assam at Gauhati dated December 21, 2004 in Review Application No.54 of 1998.
Special Leave Petition No.7182 of 2005 has been preferred by M s. Green View Tea and Industries Ltd. whose lands measuring about 681 bighas, 1 katha with tea bushes, drainage system, garden roads, shade trees and other valuable trees were numberified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by Notification published in Assam Gazette on November 11, 1992.
Special Leave granted in both these petitions.
The Collector by his award of July 4, 1994 awarded companypensation for the lands Rs.7,000/ per bigha and companypensation for the tea bushes Rs.15 per tea bush.
