9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the management of the estate. It also had a tea-manufacturing establishment on its premises. 4. A large portion of the tea estate was intended to be acquired by the Government of Assam for the construction of the an oil refinery. On 17th August 1992, the State Government sent a proposal to the Collector, Golaghat for the acquisition of the required area of land for the construction of the Numaligarh Oil Refinery. The proposal was for acquisition of 681 bighas and 1 katha along with tea bushes, drainage system, garden, roads, sheds and the trees standing on the land. Since the requirement was urgent, the State Government proposed the acquisition under Section 17(3)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 20 th August 1992, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat sent a proposal for acquisition of 751.30 acres of Government land and Patta land for the Numaligarh Oil Refinery Plant site. He requested the Government to approve of the uniform bigha rate of Rs. 55,000/- irrespective of class, for both Government and patta land. 5. By the letter dated 10 th September 1992, the Addl. Secretary to the State Government conveyed the approval of the Government for the proposal for the fixation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Collector for enhancement of compensation, which was numbered as L.A. No. 1/92-93. On 4 th July 1994, an award was declared awarding certain amount as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Judge, Golaghat by his judgment dated 18.11.1996, increased the compensation payable to Rs. 22,000/- per bigha and Rs. 75/- for each tea bush. 11. The petitioner filed First Appeal No. 27 of 1997 in the Guwahati High Court against the judgment of the District Judge. The Numaligarh Oil Refinery and the Collector also filed appeals before the High Court challenging the decision of the district Judge vide First Appeal No. 32 of 1997 and First Appeal No. 33 of 1997. By a common judgment dated 24th June 1998, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner being F.A. No. 27 of 1997 and allowed the appeals of the Collector and the Numaligarh Oil Refinery. On 29.7.1998, the petitioner filed a review petition being Review Application No. 54 of 1998 in the judgment dated 24.6.1998. On 16th October 1998, the petitioner also filed a special leave petition before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arent on the face of the record and that the considerations enumerated in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') were absent in the case. The learned Addl. Solicitor General contends that, whatever the grievance of the appellant against the judgment of the High Court dated 24.6.1998, it could not have been brought before the High Court by way of a review. He urges that the court's power of reviewing a judgment, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is extremely limited. He referred to the observations of this Court in Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. , , and has contended that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be an 'error apparent on the face of the record' justifying the court's exercise of its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. He urges that, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected" since a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot allowed to become "an appeal in disguise". After having perused the record, we are satisfied that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nised towns Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha within notified area) 3. Semi-urban area (the area beyond the Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha notified area but within two miles radius of the town either revenue or municipal town) 4. Rural area viz. paddy field and tea Rs. 60,000/- per bigha cultivation area 5. Land unfit for cultivation viz. rocky Rs. 40,000/- per bigha areas, sandy areas,jaldube areas etc. 20. Thus, it would be seen that even according to the State Government, if the land was unfit for cultivation and comprised only rocky areas, sandy areas or jaldube areas, the amount of compensation payable was at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha . As against this, the Collector was directed to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per bigha and the District Judge enhanced it to Rs. 22,000/- per bigha . Surely, the tea estate land was much more valuable than "land unfit for cultivation". It is nobody's case that the tea estate's land was uncultivated or that there were no tea bushes growing thereupon. 21. Fourthly, the oral evidence on record showed that, at all stages, the Government was prepared to pay Rs. 55,000/- per bigha and it was only the appellant who had taken a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
