- (1.) The instant appeal has assailed the judgment and decree passed in the Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 1998. The short fact for which the present appeal came to be filed is as follows: The Andaman and Nicobar Administration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here in after referred to as the Act-1 of 1894) had issued notification for acquisition of a land measuring about one hector bearing survey Plot No. 59/1 situated in village Long Island under Rangat Tehsil which is classified as paddy land (hereinafter referred to as the said land). The said land was said to be acquired for the purpose of construction of water reservoir in the Long Island for the benefit and welfare of the public at large. While issuing the said notification under the direction of the State who felt the acute emergency, the Collector had taken possession symbolically, of the said land under Section 17 Sub-section (1) of the Act-1 of 1894. The Government dispensed with compliance of Section 5A of the Act-1 of 1894. The Collector thereafter issued notices and took all steps and also estimated 80% of the compensation amount and the same was tendered to the original owner of the said plot of land being the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents under Section 17(3A) of the Act 1 of 1894. On refusal to accept, the Collector deposited the said 80% compensation amount. It appears from the records of the Collector of the said land acquisition proceeding that on 16th of August, 1998 had passed an order estimating 80% of the compensation of Rs. 64,167/-. The original owner of the said land was also notified for acceptance of the said 80% of the compensation amount. On 30th October, 1998 the said original owner of the land being the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents refused to accept the said 80% compensation amount. Thereafter, the then Collector made an application on 5th November, 1998 intending to take step under Section 31, Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (3A) of Section 17 of the Act 1 of 1894 in view of the refusal as aforesaid. The said step was taken making formal application and in the said application Section 18 of the Act 1 of 1894 was mentioned. It appears from the record of the learned Court below that on receipt of the said application the learned Trial Judge initiated the land acquisition case being No. 14 of 1998. Immediately after the said application the 80% amount of the compensation amount was deposited with the Court. On notice being served in relation to the land acquisition case No. 14 of 1998 the original owner being the predecessor-in-interest of the present Respondent entered appearance and filed objection not only to the 80% amount of compensation estimated under Section 17(3A) of Act 1 of 1894 but also he raised objection to the award made under Section 11 by that time on 10th June, 1999. The said objection was filed on 29th August, 2000. The Collector namely the Appellant before us also filed a counter objection to the statement and claim made by the original owner in relation to the said award dated 10th June, 1999. Thus it is clear when the aforesaid land acquisition case was initiated the award was not made and it was made subsequently on 10th June, 1999.
(2.) In the objection of the Collector the plea of legality and validity as well as the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge was not taken. Only objection was raised relating to the claim of enhanced amount made by the original owner.
(3.) The learned Trial Judge at the time of hearing of the matter on 16th February, 2001 framed the following issues: Is the present reference maintainable in fact and in Law ? Has the value of the land of the claimant, which has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, been correctly and properly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector ? Is the claimant entitled to compensation at a higher rate as claimed ? Is the claimant entitled to any other relief as prayed for ?;