OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD Vs. SAMARENDRANATH MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal filed under Rule 2, Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules has questioned the legality of the judgment and order dated 16.11.2011, delivered in W.P.(C) No.77/2009 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) This appeal has its chequered history.

(3.) The order dated 29.12.2007 was initially challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.77/2009, contending that the said determination under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act is barred by limitation inasmuch as within the prescribed period of three months no application was made for re-determination of the award by the respondent No.1. The reference as made by one Bithika Bose (Sarkar), whose land was also acquired by the notification No.F.17(20)- ACQ/REV/72, dated 02.01.1973 was answered by the Land Acquisition Judge by a common judgment and award dated 10.02.2003 delivered in Mis.(LA) No.8/2000 to Misc.(LA) No.14/2000. Against the enhanced award as passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, being L.A. Appl. No.16/2003. It appears further that, as an off-shot of the said land acquisition appeal, a petition for staying the said award, being C.M. Appl. No.129/2003 was filed by the appellant. Having being persuaded thereof, an interim order was passed on 07.08.2003, directing payment in the mode as provided therein, subject to the final determination of the appeal. Contingent thereupon, the execution was stayed. It is the case of the appellant in the writ petition that with a photo-copy of the said order dated 07.08.2003, the respondent No.1 had submitted an application on 07.11.2003 for re-determining their award under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act in view of the said judgment and award dated 10.02.2003. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 was otherwise the person interested in terms of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act inasmuch as he did not opt for any reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act to the Land Acquisition Judge for determining the market rate. The appellant in the writ petition has categorically contended that no application within a period of three months from the date of the judgment i.e. 10.02.2003 having made there was absolute lack of jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 in assuming the power under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act. The limitation cannot be counted from the day of the order passed in C.M. Appl. No.78/2003. Apart that, the appellant in para 14 of the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.77/2009, has contended that