Patna High Court
Bijoy Kumar Santhalia vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 17 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989PAT1, 1988(36)BLJR397, AIR 1989 PATNA 1, (1988) BLJ 707, (1989) PAT LJR 76, 1989 BBCJ 35, 1988 BLJR 397
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER S.B. Sinha, J.
1. In this writ petition the , petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for issuance of writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order and direction passed by the respondent Commissioner by which he has reduced the rate of compensation decided by the Collector as proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer and its consequential a ward-cum-notice as contained in Annexures 5 and 6.
2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.
3. Admittedly, the lands which belonged, to the petitioner had been acquired in a proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act bearing Land Acquisition Case No. L.A. 1 of 1983-84. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 98,750/- per acre. The said-matter was referred to the Additional Collector (Land Revenue), Bhagalpur, who after examining the matter also agreed to the proposal of Special Land Acquisition Officer and sent the matter for approval to the Collector. By an order dated 25-8-1987 the Collector of the district also approved the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 98,750/- per acre.
4. However, the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division issued a letter directing the Collector to report as to under what circumstances such a rate of compensation has to be fixed.
Upon an enquiry made in this regard, a report was prepared by the Collector, which was sent to the Commissioner by Memo No. 640 dt. 25-11-1987, 25-11-1987, which is contained in (Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
5. By a letter issued by the Secretary of the Commissioner dt. 28-11-1987, the Collector had been directed to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per acre. The said order is contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition.
6. Consequent upon the aforementioned order, a letter dt. 30-11-1987 has been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in terms of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act whereby the compensation has been fixed at Rs. 1,52,575.42 paise purported to be on the basis of the order as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division is not a statutory authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to show any provision under the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that the Commissioner has some statutory function to perform in such matters or he can exercise his supervisory jurisdiction in respect of the order passed by the Collector.
9. It is well known that under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act functionaries mentioned therein have been assigned specific duties and powers. Land Acquisition Act is also a self-contained Code and lays down a complete procedure thereunder.
10. In view of the fact that the order as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the direction of the Commissioner as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the same also cannot be sustained although the Land Acquisition Officer is one of the statutory functionaries under the Land Acquisition Act.
It is well settled that a statutory functionary also cannot pass an order on the basis of the recommendation and/or in consultation with an authority, who has no role to play under the statute. Reference in this connection may be made to Udayappan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu reported in (1983) 1 Lab LJ 170 : (1982 Lab IC NOC 124) (Mad).
In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 are hereby quashed.
12. The Collector under the Act shall now make payments to the petitioner, in accordance with law, at an early date.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.