Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) AGRICULTURAL lands comprised in survey Nos. 119, 120, 121, 136 and 146, measuring .60, .07, .06, .08 and .04 hectares respectively (hereafter the said lands), in School Line Village, Port Blair Tehsil, Andaman District were purchased by the respondents along with 4 (four) others [which included Smt. Valsamma Varghese (hereafter Varghese)] from Shri Raghbans Lall and Shri Harbans Lall by a registered sale deed executed on June 9, 1997. Since the purchasers wished to build dwelling units on the said lands, they formed a co -operative, viz. Mini India Housing Co -operative Society Limited (hereafter Mini India), and approached the Sub -divisional Officer, South Andaman with a prayer for conversion thereof to non -agricultural lands. The prayer was allowed by an order dated November 20, 1998 and the said lands were treated as house -sites. Soon thereafter, a portion of land comprised in survey No. 146 purchased by Varghese and a portion of land comprised in survey No. 121 purchased by the first respondent were acquired and awards were made on June 9, 1999 and May 31, 2001 respectively treating the same as house -sites. More than 2 (two) years after conversion was allowed, the said sub -divisional officer suo motu issued a notice dated April 17, 2001 seeking to review the order passed in relation thereto. Mini India and others presented a writ petition [W.P. No. 7226(W) of 2001] challenging the authority of the sub -divisional officer to issue such notice. The challenge failed before the learned single judge. The order dismissing the writ petition dated August 9, 2001 was carried in appeal (M.A.T. No. 22 of 2001). By judgment and order dated October 9, 2001, the writ appeal was allowed. It was held that the sub -divisional officer acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice and accordingly, the same was quashed. Since during the pendency of the writ appeal the sub -divisional officer had disposed of the proceeding for review by recalling his earlier order allowing conversion, the Hon'ble Division Bench also quashed the order on review. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the balance of the said lands were also acquired to set up defence establishment and an award dated September 19, 2002 for Rs. 6,21,740/ - on account of compensation, solatium and interest was made by the Additional District Magistrate (L.A.), being the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the L.A. Act) treating the same as agricultural lands. The said award was challenged in a writ petition [C.R. 14 of 2002], which was disposed of on September 30, 2002 granting liberty to the aggrieved petitioners, if they so desire, to file an appropriate application under section 18 of the L.A. Act.
(2.) IT appears that on October 30, 2002, an application under section 18(1) of the L.A. Act was received by the appellant from the respondents for referring the matter to the competent Court for determination of compensation and other relief as admissible under the law. By filing an application dated April 10, 2003 under section 31(2) of the L.A. Act before the learned District Judge on May 19, 2003, the appellant deposited in court the award amount i.e. Rs. 6,21,740/ -. Such application was accompanied by the Collector's statement under section 19 of the L.A. Act. In the meanwhile, however, the judgment and order dated October 9, 2001 of the Hon'ble Division Bench had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the Union of India, vide SLP (Civil) No. 1977 of 2002 [renumbered Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2002], and stay of operation of the same was granted. The civil appeal was ultimately rejected by an order dated April 27, 2010 keeping the question of law raised therein open for argument in an appropriate case. By the selfsame order, Civil Appeal No. 6225 of 2004 preferred by Mini India against the order dated September 30, 2002 in C.R. 14 of 2002 was disposed of. The material part of such order reads as follows: "Aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R. No. 14 of 2002, the appellant is before us in this appeal. There was a connected appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2002. In that appeal we have taken a view that the lands in question are no more agricultural lands, but non -agricultural lands. It is now for the appellant to make an appropriate application before the Reference Court for fixing the higher rate of compensation in view of the fact that the lands in question are the non -agricultural lands. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to interfere with the order passed the High Court. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal. However, we grant liberty to the appellant, if it so desires, to make an appropriate application before the Reference Court within four weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the Reference Court will entertain the application and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties."
(3.) AVAILING the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents filed a petition before the learned District Judge on October 11, 2010, titling it as "Amended Claim Petition", and prayed that compensation ought to be worked out treating the balance of the said lands as non -agricultural lands.;