JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The appellant, respondent No. 5 in Civil Rule No. 400/94 is in appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.4.2000 passed therein whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside and quashed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh directing the writ petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 8,14,650 being the value of the tea bushes and the land measuring 11B, 2K,41L for the acquisition thereof.
2. We have heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, Advocate assisted by Ms. A. Islam for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Agarwal, for the Respondent No. 1, Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam represented the Respondent No. 2.
3. The pleaded facts deserve attention to comprehend the issues involved. According to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, M/s. Oil India Ltd., it being in urgent need of land for the purpose of exploration of Oil and Natural Gas on 15.10.1980 applied to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department for acquiring about 11B, 2K, 4L of land situated within the area of Bazaloni T. E. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). As it was in pressing need of the land, it also applied on 16.10.1980 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh under Section 190 of the Rules framed under Section 155 (f) of the Assam Land and Regulations, 1886 (herein referred to as the ‘Regulations’) for handing over immediate possession thereof. It repeated its request on 9.8.1982. An enquiry thereafter was conducted by the Collector, Dibrugarh under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). In course of which two sittings on 16.8.1982 and 24.8.1982 were held between the officials of the parties. During the discussion, in the meeting held on 24.8.1982, it was agreed upon by the parties that the compensation in respect of the land measuring 11B, 2K and 4L would be payable at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and compensation in respect of surface damage would be paid in terms of Krishnamurty Formula of 1972 along with 15% additional compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The amount in terms of the agreement was computed to be Rs. 63,215,46. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 contended that it accordingly deposited the said amount on 24.9.1982 vide Treasury Challan of the same date. The appellant thereafter handed over the possession of the land to the Special Land Acquisition officer who in turn delivered the land to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 on 29.10.1982 acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 63,215.46 without any objection. A formal document for handing over and taking over the possession of the land was prepared and was signed by Smt. Vandana Rasiwasia, the attorney of the appellant, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dibrugarh and the Land Officer of the writ petitioner. Therein while acknowledging the receipt of the payment of the aforesaid amount and while confirming the delivery of the possession of the land, the said attorney on behalf of the appellant gave an undertaking that the sale deed transferring the said land in favour of the writ petitioner would be executed and registered on receipt of the balance amount of compensation for tea bushes after finalisation of the revised rate by the Government. Subsequent thereto, the Additional Deputy Commissioner requested the Govt. to expedite the sending of the new formula so as to finalise the process for payment. A writ petition was also filed thereafter being Civil Rule No. 25/85 by the appellant before this court for directing the State of Assam to recast the Krishnamurty Formula for assessing the compensation for tea bushes only and the writ petitioner – Oil India Ltd. to pay the balance amount of compensation with interest. This court eventually by order dated 3.9.1990 disposed of the Civil Rule directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to assess the damages for payment of compensation in terms of the directions contained in the judgment rendered in Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Eastern Region, Nazira, petitioner v. Assam Board of Revenue and Ors., respondents (1989) 1 GLR 223. The appellant next file an application on 31.3.1992, before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh for assessment of compensation payable to it by the writ petitioner. This was followed by another application. Whereby an amount of Rs. 40,86,825.60 was claimed as compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000 per bigha together with interest and solatium. Other amounts towards surface compensation and loss of earnings were also claimed. The writ petitioner submitted objections setting out the aforementioned facts contending, inter alia, that the amount of Rs. 63,215,46 as computed had already been paid towards the value of the land and that of the tea bushes on the basis of the Krishnamurty Formula and that what remained to be paid was only the compensation for the tea bushes at the enhanced rate as and when revised by the Govt. It contended that the value of the land as agreed to by the parties was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and that the appellant was not entitled to any further amount as claimed by it except the compensation for the tea bushes at the enhanced rate fixed by the Government as agreed to in the meeting dated 24.8.1982. It is the case of the writ petitioner that thereafter on 3.9.1993 a further amount of Rs. 90,855.02 being the balance compensation amount in respect of 12132 Nos of tea bushes at the rate of Rs. 10 per bush was paid in compliance of this court’s order dated 3.9.1990 passed in Civil Rule No. 25/85. The amount was duly received by the appellant without any objection. While the matters rested at that the writ petitioner was served with the impugned memo dated 14.12.1993 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh directing it to pay a sum of Rs. 8,14,650 being the compensation for the aforementioned land and the tea bushes thereof. This letter was accompanied by an order dated 30.11.1992 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh holding that the writ petitioner was liable to pay the value of the land at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh vide order dated 20.6.1992 and for the tea bushes as per the revised rate of Krishnamurty Formula communicated by the Government in 1989. From the communication dated 14.12.1993 it appeared that the value of the land was taken to be Rs. 60,000 per bigha as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh by his order dated 20.6.1992. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed assailing the orders dated 30.11.1992 and 14.12.1993. In the counter of the appellant, it is contended that the discussions held in the meeting dated 24.8.1982 was limited to the handing over of the land in question under Rules 189 and 190 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulations and did not relate to the value thereof for purpose of transfer of title therein in favour of the writ petitioner. The compensation accordingly was worked out by applying the Krishnamurty Formula for compensation as contemplated under Rules 189 and 190. According to it, Rs. 2000 per bigha was misconstrued to be the rate/value of the land. It was fixed only for computing the surface of compensation to be paid under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. It asserted that the undertaking given by the Attorney of the appellant was also misinterpreted and it was obvious that the execution of the said deed would follow the payment of the consideration price of the land. Its stand was that the value of the land for sale thereof had not been paid by the writ petitioner and therefore no sale deed had been executed in its favour. The amount received was only by way of surface compensation under Rules 189 and 190. In its counter it referred to a meeting held on 11.12.1989 between the officials of the Oil India Ltd. and the State Administration for fixing the uniform value of the lands acquired by the Oil India Ltd. wherein after a threadbare discussion the value of different categories of land was fixed. The value of land in the rural area was to be computed at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per bigha exclusive of the surface compensation. Later, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 25.2.1991 informed the authorities of the Oil India Ltd. that the value as fixed would be applicable in the district of Tinsukia as well. In response thereto, the Oil India Ltd. requested the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to expedite fixing of the land value on the basis of the valuation made, in order to enable it to pay the calculated price to the affected persons. It was thereafter, that a communication dated 20.6.1992 was issued by the District Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to the effect that the valuation of the land acquired/taken over by the Oil India Ltd. in the years prior to 1990 and pending for payment of land value would be made as per the rates set out therein. The rates were as fixed in the meeting dated 11.12.1989. The appellant, therefore, maintained that the writ petitioner was liable to pay the compensation amount for the land at the rate fixed by the said order and for the tea bushes as per the revised rate.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ petitioner – Oil India Ltd. while reiterating its stand in the writ petition it categorically contended that the rates at which the valuation of the different categories of land were fixed in the discussion dated 11.12.1989 and thereafter by the order dated 20.6.1992 had no application at all to the land involved in the proceeding inasmuch as the value thereof had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha as agreed to by the parties as far as back as on 24.8.1982. It, therefore, maintained that the rates were wrongly sought to be applied to the land involved as payment in connection therewith was not pending, the balance amount of compensation in terms of the discussion on 24.8.1982 having been paid on 3.9.1993.
5. The learned Single Judge in the above factual background by the impugned judgment and order accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.11.1992 and 14.12.1993.
6. Assailing the judgment and order impugned herein, Mrs. Hazarika has argued that the value of the land in question had not been assessed in course of the discussion on 20.4.1982 and that the amount of compensation worked out and paid in terms thereof was only for tea bushes on the land the parties agreed that the compensation initially would be calculated as per the 1972 Krishnamurty Formula and that the appellant would be entitled to further 15% additional compensation as per the provisions of the Act and the balance amount together with corresponding 15% additional compensation would be paid on receipt of the revised rate of compensation of the tea bushes from the Government. The learned counsel maintained that at no point of time it was in the contemplation of the parties that the value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and the undertaking issued on behalf of the appellant by its attorney could not be construed to be one for transferring the land on receipt of the balance amount of compensation for the tea bushes at the revised rate. The learned counsel while drawing the attention of this court to the documents annexed to the memo of appeal, more particularly, the communication dated 8.3.1991 and the order dated 20.6.1992 Annexures F and H thereto, strongly contended that as the payment of the price of the land taken over by the Oil India Ltd. had neither been computed nor paid by the writ petitioner, the impugned orders were rightly passed in terms of the rate fixed for the valuation thereof. Mrs. Hazarika urged that the communication dated 8.3.1991 issued by the Oil India Ltd. clearly demonstrates that it was also aware that the payment of the value of the land had not been made which is clear from the fact that a copy of the said letter was forwarded to the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the materials on records clearly proclaim that the Oil India Ltd. was liable to pay the value of the land at the rate fixed by the Government together with the compensation for the tea bushes at the revised rate and the learned Single Judge was in error in holding otherwise by leaving out of consideration the over whelming evidence to the contrary.
7. Refuting the above contentions Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that a plain reading of the minutes of the meeting dated 20.4.1982 reveals that the value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and the compensation was calculated on the basis of the Krishnamurty Formula. The parties agreed that the additional amount of compensation for the tea bushes would be paid at the revised rate fixed by the Government. The learned senior counsel urged that as acting in terms of the said discussion and the agreement on the basis thereof, the Oil India Ltd. at the first instance had paid Rs. 63,215.46 and subsequently on 3.9.1993, a further sum of Rs. 90,855.02, the process was finalised and complete for all intents and purposes and therefore the same could not have been reopened by the impugned orders. Drawing the attention of this court in particular to the order dated 20.6.1992 whereby the rates for valuing different categories of land had been fixed. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that it was clear therefrom that those rates were not applicable to the cases which had already been settled by way of payment of the land value. He insisted that as in the instant case, the value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and the entire amount calculated on such basis had been paid, the order dated 20.6.1992 had no application at all to the land involved in the instant case. Moreover, the balance amount of compensation for the tea bushes having already been paid and accepted by the appellant without any objection, there was no scope for reopening the matter as sought to be done. To buttress his arguments, the learned senior counsel referred to the impugned order dated 30.11.1992 where it had been recorded that the value of the land had been fixed at Rs. 3000 per bigha. He argued that the rate, so fixed by the Collector was reduced to Rs. 2000 per bigha following a negotiation between the parties and as the agreement assumed the form of a concluded contract, it cannot be permitted in law to be reopened. He submitted that Rules 189 and 190 were not attracted in the instant case. As on the basis of mutual discussions followed an agreement between the parties, the value of the land and the compensation for the tea bushes had been assessed on agreed rates, the contention of the appellant that the compensation amount was only for the surface damage for the tea bushes in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly untenable. In support of his submissions, he referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Dayal Singh and Ors. appellant v. Union of India and Ors., respondents (2003) 2 SCC 593.
8. In course of the arguments it was noticed that a letter dated 20.7.1991 written by the appellant and referred to the communication dated 8.3.1991, Annexure F to the appeal brief was not on record. As desired by this court, the appellant by an affidavit has placed on record the said letter. This was considered necessary in view of the contents of the communication dated 8.3,1991 indicating the inclination of the Oil India Ltd. to make payment of the land value to the owners of the lands acquired by it.
9. The hub of the controversy therefore is whether in the discussions held on 24.8.1982 and the compensation assessed on the basis thereof, the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha was assessed or not. The minutes of the meeting disclose that both the parties were represented therein and the discussion was a continuation of the earlier discussion held on 16.8.1982. The appellant agreed to accept the compensation on the basis of 1972 Krishnamurty Formula together with 15% additional compensation as per the provisions of the Act on the condition that the balance amount of compensation would be at the revised rated of compensation of tea bushes to be fixed by the Government along with the corresponding 15% additional compensation. The amount of compensation as agreed upon was fixed as hereunder :-
"STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR
LOCATION 'HCT' LS1
1. Land value of @ Rs. 2000 per bigha for 11B.2K,
4Ls of land Rs. 22,880.00
2. Shade trees @ Rs. 21.00 for 42 Nos. of trees, Rs. 882.00
3. Shade trees @Rs. 10.50 for 62 Nos. of trees (medium) Rs. 651.00
4. Shade trees @ Rs. 1.00 for 82 Nos. of trees Rs. 82.00
5. Guava tree (medium) 1 No. @Rs. 10.00 Rs. 10.00
6. Tea bushes 12,132 Nos. Rs. 30,464.98
-------------
Rs. 54,969.98
15% addl. compensation as per Section 23(2) of the L.A.
Act, 1894. Rs. 28,245.48
-------------
Rs. 63,215.46
Sd/- M.L. Agarwalla, Proprietor
Sd/- B.K. Baruah, Sr. L.O. Oil India,
Sd/- H. P. Chaliha, Spl. L. A. O. DBR."
10. It would appear from the above that the value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2000 per bigha and the amount payable was Rs. 22,880.00. Compensation for the trees and tea bushes was separately assessed.
11. The undertaking given by the attorney of the appellant as is contained in the handing over/taking over possession document executed on 29.10.1982 after receiving the computed amount of Rs. 63,215.46 for ready reference is set out hereinbelow :-
“I have also received an amount of Rs. 63,215.46 (Rupees sixty three thousand two hundred fifteen and paise forty six) only being interim payment of compensation for the area of 11B, 2K, 4L involved in the above location with the understanding that the balance amount of compensation for the tea bushes will be paid to the tea company soon after the finalisation of revised rate of compensation by the Govt. when the Director of the Company or any person holding valid power of attorney of his/her behalf shall complete the execution/documentation of the sale deed for the above land before the Sub-Registrar Dibrugarh.”
The languaged therein clearly suggest that on receiving the balance amount of compensation on the basis of revised Government rates for the tea bushes, the Company would execute the sale deed for the land.
12. It is apposite to recount at this stage the observation recorded in the order dated 30.11.1992 to the effect that the Collector had assessed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3000 per bigha on 5.3.1981. It is the common case of the parties that the mode of calculating the compensation had been devised as agreed to by them and that on receipt of the amount so fixed in the meeting dated 24.8.1982 the possession of the land was delivered to the writ petitioner. Having regard to the minuted fact that the value of the land had been assessed by the Collector at Rs. 3000 per bigha, the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner, the Oil India Ltd. that on negotiation the rate was scaled down to Rs. 2000 per bigha cannot be lightly brushed aside. Though the Oil India Ltd. had applied to the State Administration for acquiring the land as well as for taking over possession thereof as contemplated under Sections 189 and 190 of the Settlement Rules, admittedly, the parties had entered into one negotiation for fixing the compensation and other matters relating to delivery of possession etc. It is the categorical assertion of the writ petitioner that an enquiry was held by the Collector, Dibrugarh under Rule 4 of the Rules in the matter in course of which, the meetings and discussions were held on 16.8.1982 and 24.8.1982 which culminated in settling the terms and conditions on which the compensation for the land was to the assessed and paid. Excerpts of Rule 4 of the Rules relevant for our purpose one set out hereinbelow :-
“Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings – (1) Whenever a Company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matter, namely :-
(i) that the company has made if best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition ;
(ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed.”
……………………………….
“(2) The collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity, to make any representation in this behalf, hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in Sub-rules (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall :-
(i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land, consult the Senior Agriculture Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land ;
(ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land, which in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the Company.”
13. Reading between the lines in the quoted portions of the Rule, makes it clear that the Collector while entertaining an application of a Company to acquire any land has to, at the outset make reasonable efforts to get such land by negotiation with persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and for the said purpose would hold an enquiry and thereafter determine the appropriate amount of compensation payable in respect thereof.
14. The facts available on record disclose that such a negotiation had taken place and the value of the land was agreed upon to be assessed at the rate of 2000 per bigha, though the Collector had fixed it at Rs. 3000. The assertion on the part of the writ petitioner that such an enquiry has been held by the Collector has remained un-rebutted.
15. It is also not dispute that acting on the terms of the agreement, the writ petitioner-Oil India Ltd. had initially paid Rs. 63,215.46 and thereafter the balance amount of Rs. 90,855.02 at the revised rate fixed by the Govt. on 3.9.1993 and further that the amount had been received by the appellant without any objection. In the meantime, the appellant had approached this court with Civil Rule No. 25/85 complaining about non-payment of the balance compensation amount for the surface damages. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of an earlier decision referred to above directing the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to assess such damage after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is not the case of the appellant that in the earlier Civil Rule it had expressed any grievance with regard to valuation of the land.
16. We now turn to the communication dated 8.3.1991 of the Oil India Ltd. and the letter dated 27.2.1991 of the appellant Tea Estate. By its letter, the appellant informed the Oil India Ltd. that it had been permitted to sell the land to the writ petitioner and requested it to settle the value thereof at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per bigha as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. The letter dated 8.3.1991 is the one by which the Oil India Ltd. had informed the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia of its intention of making payment of the land value to the owners of the land acquired for it with a request to expedite the fixation of the land value. A copy of this letter was marked to the appellant with reference to its letter dated 27.2.1991. It is noticeable that the Oil India Ltd. in its letter has not acknowledged that any rate had till then been fixed by the Government, though in the meantime according to the appellant a meeting was held on 11.12.1989 involving the officials of the Govt. and the Oil India Ltd. The appellant in its counter has also not referred to its letter dated 27.2.1991 addressed to Oil India Ltd. There is no reference of the particulars of the land in the said letter as well. The order dated 20.6.1992, the sheet anchor of the appellant’s claim, clearly mentioned that the rates fixed thereby would not apply to the cases which had already been settled by payment of the land value. As referred to above, from the minutes of the meeting dated 24.8.1982 and the particulars of the compensation assessed on the basis thereof, the value of the land involved was fixed at Rs. 2000 per bigha. Can this letter dated 8.3.1991 read with the appellant’s letter dated 27.2.1991 outweigh the over welming materials to the contrary ? Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel persuaded to answer in the affirmative.
17. The land was taken over in the year, 1982 and if acquired under the Act would have fetched the compensation in terms of Section 23 thereof as on the date of notification for such acquisition. It is even, otherwise unacceptable that the Oil India Ltd. would be ready to pay compensation on the basis of valuation of the land assessed in the year 1992, i.e., 10 years after the taking over thereof. Moreover, it has been very categorical in its stand that the rate fixed by the order dated 20.6.1992 are not applicable to the land in question. It stands to reason that the rates would be applicable only to the cases where lands have been acquired in the proximity of the year, 1992 and in cases where the assessment of compensation and payment thereof is pending. It is otherwise in the case in hand. The parties have agreed to the mode of assessment of compensation, the same has been fixed, the amount has been assessed including the value of the land and the same has been paid. The march of events following the discussion and the agreement on the basis thereof dated 24.8.1982 cannot go un-noticed.
18. The issue which fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) was whether the appellants therein who had ordered into an agreement with the respondents and had received compensation for acquisition of their lands had the right to compel the respondents to enter into a fresh agreement on the basis of an award passed granting increased compensation in a proceeding involving 3rd parties. Negating the claim of the appellants, the Apex Court held that once a matter is concluded by a contract, it can be reopened only with the agreement of both the parties and any right to reopen a proceeding which has attained finality must exist in the statute governing the said proceeding, while respectfully subscribing to the above observations we are of the opinion that in view of the agreement between the parties with regard to mode of compensation and payment of the compensation and the acceptance thereof by the appellant, it was not permissible on the part of the official respondents to reopen the issue and direct the writ petitioner to make payment of additional amounts of compensation on the basis of the rates fixed subsequently by the order dated 20.6.1992. The writ petitioner having admittedly paid the compensation amount in full in terms of the agreement between the parties it could not have been directed to pay any additional sum for the said purpose.
19. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge together with the reasons in support thereof. We do not find any good or sufficient reason to differ from the same. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant therefore fail. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.