Patna High Court - Orders
Raghunath Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 May, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20058 of 2012
======================================================
1. Arjun Yadav, son of Kishun Yadav.
2. Ranjit Yadav, Ssn of Arjun Yadav.
Both residents of Mauza: Nagadih, P.S. No. 457, Village: Parpar, P.O.
Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20618 of 2012
======================================================
Saro Devi, W/o Late Baleshwar Yadav, resident of Mauza:Nagadih Aliganj
Farm, Thana No. 457, Village-Farpar, P.O- Sithaura, P.S- Rajgir, District-
Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20959 of 2012
======================================================
1. Tota Yadav.
2. Satyadeo Prasad @ Satyadeo Yadav.
Both sons of Late Seeta Yadav @ Sitab Yadav, R/O Mauza-Nagadih,
P.S. No. 457, Village-Farpar, P.O.- Sithaura, P.S.-Rajgir, District-
Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21018 of 2012
======================================================
1. Arjun Yadav, son of Kishun Yadav.
2. Ranjit Yadav, son of Arjun Yadav.
Both residents of Mauza: Nagadih, P.S. No. 457, Village: Parpar, P.O.
Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1405 of 2013
======================================================
Leela Devi, W/o Late Nawal Kishre Rajbanshi, resident of Village-
Pawadih, Tola- Dhamar, P.O- Chandi Mow, P.S- Rajjir, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23062 of 2012
======================================================
Chinta Devi, wife of Late Prakash Rajbanshi in her capacity as the legal heir
to Late Prakash Rajvanshi, R/O Village- Pawadih, Tola- Dhamar, P.S.-
Rajgir, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23076 of 2012
======================================================
Chinta Devi, wife of Late Prakash Rajbanshi, R/O Village- Pawadih, Tola-
Dhamar, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23489 of 2012
======================================================
Alakhdeo Prasad, son of Kali Yadav, resident of Village -Chamardiha, P.O.
- Chandi Mow, P.S. - Rajgir, District - Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014
2/12
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23011 of 2012
======================================================
1. Lato Chaudhary.
2. Ram Khelawam Chaudhary.
Both sons of Lakhan Chaudhary and residents of Village- Chandi Mow,
P.S- Silao, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16501 of 2013
======================================================
1. Viresh Yadav,
2. Sudhir Yadav,
3. Kailash Yadav,
4. Prakash Yadav,
All sons of Surju Yadav and all residents of Mauza- Jagadih Aliganj
Farm, Thana No.-457, Village- Farpar, P.O., P.S. Ragjir, District-
Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16876 of 2013
======================================================
1. Ramjee Yadav, son of Late Kishun Yadav.
2. Chotey Yadav, son of Ramji Yadav.
3. Virendra Yadav, son of Ramji Yadav.
All residents of Mauza: Nagadih Aliganj Farm, Thana No.- 457, Village
- Farpur, P.O., P.S. Rajgir, District : Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18296 of 2013
======================================================
Ramswarup Yadav, son of Late Sita Yadav, resident of Mauza Nagadih
Aliganj Farm, Thana No.457, Village-Farpar, P.O., P.S. Rajgir, District -
Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14519 of 2012
======================================================
Chhotan Yadav, son of Kishun Yadav, resident of Village: Aliganj Farm,
Nagadih, P.S. No. 457, Village: Pharphar, P.O. Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir,
District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14503 of 2012
======================================================
1. Ram Prasad Yadav.
2. Sahdeo Yadav.
3. Binda Yadav.
4. Rajendra Yadav.
All sons of Late Bhagiya Devi and Late Gokhul Yadav, all residents of
Mauza: Nagadih, Aliganj Farm, P.S. No. 457, Village: Pharphar, P.O.
Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14516 of 2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014
3/12
======================================================
1. Naresh Yadav,
2. Jagdeo Yadav,
3. Mithilesh Yadav,
4. Sanjay Yadav
All sons of Ram Chandra Yadav.
5. Ramchandra Yadav, son of Late Kishun Yadav.
All residents of Mauza: Nagadih, P.S. No. 457, Village: Pharphar, P.O.
Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14597 of 2012
======================================================
1. Rameshwar Yadav,
2. Balgovind Yadav,
3. Krishna Yadav,
4. Musafir Yadav,
5. Rambriksh Yadav,
All sons of Punna Yadav and all residents of Mauza: Nagadih, P.S. No.
457, Village: Pharphar, P.O. Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District: Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11681 of 2012
======================================================
1. Raghunath Yadav, son of Late Dhalu Yadav.
2. Binod Yadav,
3. Bipin Yadav,
Both sons of Raghunath Yadav.
All residents of Mauza:Nagadih, Survey P.S. No. 457, Village : Pharpar,
P.O. Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir, District : Nalanda, presently rehabilitated at
Nagdih-2, P.O. Sithaura, Village-Rajgir, District-Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioners.
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14497 of 2012
======================================================
Fulia Devi, wife of Jageshwar Yadav, resident of Village: Aliganj Farm,
Nagadih, P.S. No. 457, Village: Pharphar, P.O. Sithaura, P.S. Rajgir,
District: Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary,
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
.... .... Respondents (In all the cases).
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : M/s Mrigank Mauli, Jainandan Singh &
Samir Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, AC to AG.
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014
4/12
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
ORAL ORDER
09 07-05-2014In all these writ petitions there is a common question of law and, therefore, with consent of parties, all these writ petitions were clubbed together and taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. All these writ petitions arise out of various land acquisition proceedings, simultaneously initiated one of them being L.A. Case Nos. 02 of 1999-2000 and 10 of 2001, as before the Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. Substantial lands were acquired for establishment of ordinance factory at Rajgir in the district of Nalanda. Various awards were purported to be made in these land acquisition proceedings. One of the alleged awards in this case was Award No.60. There were other similar awards as well where compensation amount and land area differ. All the petitioners in various writs are interested in respect of those awards. Award No.60 is purported to be dated 21.10.2002. It is part of Annexure-2 to the first writ petition. A perusal of the award shows that it is in respect of total of 46.38 acres of land and the sum total amount of compensation is shown to be Rs.67, 26, 798.00, but when it comes to the awardees it is clearly mentioned none. The question would be, is it an award in terms of the Land Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 5/12 Acquisition Act (hereinafter in brevity 'Act'). This is the issue because what happened was that the claimants came and they were claiming lands in excess of this area was actually being acquired which fell in this area. Who had what claim all that was not known? Accordingly, not knowing who were the awardees the Collector made a reference to the Civil Court in terms of Section-30 of the Act. This was then decided by the Civil Court whereby the Civil Court identified the persons entitled to compensation. The matter was then received back in the land acquisition office and parties were then issued notices under Section-12 (2) of the Act after identifying the awardess and apportionating their compensation. Thereafter, in accordance with the apportionment order under Section-30 of the Act to the awardees, as per the notice under Section-12 (2) of the Act, payments were made. Large number of awardees not being satisfied with the award, though received their payments, filed applications under Section-18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif has rejected all those applications, as barred by limitation, holding that the award was made on 12.06.2001 and their applications under Section-18 of the Act were being filed in the year 2010, which was much beyond six months/six weeks as Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 6/12 the case may be. It is the correctness of this stand in law that is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an award, as contemplated under Section-11 of the Act, has three components before it can be called an award. It must give the area of land for which the award is being made. It must give the quantum of compensation and it must name the awardees. Unless, these three components are there, there cannot be an award. Thus, his submission would be that if we see the so called award dated 12.06.2001, we would find that all it mentions is the total area of land, being 46.38 acres. The total compensation for these 46.38 acres being about Rs.67 lakhs, but who is to get this compensation is not stated at all. Who are the awardees in the award, if it is an award, is not known? It is not that the right of any claimant is accepted or rejected by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer. Instead of deciding this issue himself and passing an award accordingly, he merely refers the matter postponing it till Civil Court decides it under Section- 30 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the award would be one which was prepared after the order of the Civil Court under Section-30 of the Act when the rights of parties and the compensation being received by them became Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 7/12 known. The right to file a reference in terms of Section-18 of the Act would then arise. If notice of the award is then issued, which in this case was issued in the year 2010 on different dates, then the six weeks time would be counted from that day. If this is taken into account then the applications filed under Section-18 of the Act for referring the matter in respect of enhancement of compensation is within time and the stand of the District Land Acquisition Officer is wrong.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that once an award is made, which was done on 12.06.2001, it is an award laying down the land to be acquired and the compensation payable. Anyone aggrieved could have filed an application under Section-18 of the Act then and there. Not having been done, they have lost their chance in law. It is also submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State that the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif is, thus, correct.
5. Having considered the matter, in my view, the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer cannot be sustained. According to the State, an award merely has to quantify the award and the compensation that is required to be paid. This is not correct. A reference to Section-11(1) of the Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 8/12 Land Acquisition Act would show that an award has to be made showing three clear heads.
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion
should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him;
6. Thus, there are three vital components of an award and unless all three are present it cannot be an award. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the argument of the State that the so called award dated 12.06.2001 was an award then who could file an application for reference under Section-18 of the Act. Surely, a person who is not named in the award cannot do so. This is so because no one's claim was rejected. Land Acquisition Officer just could not identify the persons or their entitlement which was made dependent on Civil Court finding. Even if a person decides to file reference application for what land will he file the application not for the entire acquisition, but Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 9/12 his land has not been apportioned, against what compensation will he file a reference for there is no compensation in respect of him? Even assuming further that if someone were to file what would the Court decide because from the so called award there are no particulars appertaining to the persons who has filed the reference. Thus, to make the section meaningful and purposeful, the only interpretation that can be given is, an award is not complete award within the meaning of law unless it has full and complete particulars of all the three components as mentioned in Section-11 of the Act. Thus, in this view of my finding, the purported award of 12.06.2001 is not an award for it was not meant to be an award. For the purposes of apportionment, as contemplated under Section-11 (i) (3) of the Act, the matter had been referred under Section-30 to the Civil Court. The award became complete only when effect was given by the authorities to the order of the Civil Court upon reference for apportionment under Section-30 of the Act. Looked at it in another way. If an award had already been prepared in 2001 where was the notice under Section-12 (2) of the Act because upon notices received under Section-12(2) of the Act in terms of Section-18 itself a fresh cause to file reference arises. It is not the case of the State nor could it be the case of the State that immediately after the Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 10/12 purported award dated 12.06.2001 no notice under Section-12 (2) was issued to any of the petitioners for simple reason no such notice could be issued as the awardees were not known. The notice under Section-12 (2) of the Act has to be issued to the awardees. The awardees for the first time were identified after the order of the Civil Court in reference under Section-30 of the Act. This belies the stand of the State. This shows that the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer is incorrect. It is upon knowing the amount that the person would receive or became entitled to that he becomes aggrieved. This right to receive compensation was not adjudicated by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is at that stage when the right to file an application in terms of Section-18 of the Act arises.
7. Thus, the District Land Acquisition Officer was not correct in holding that the applications under Section-18 of the Act were grossly barred by limitation as they were filed after several years of the alleged award. His very assumption that the award was made on 12.06.2001 is incorrect in fact and in law. The award was made in the facts of these cases only after the reference order of the Civil Court under Section-30 notice was given effect to and the compensation money was apportioned among the beneficiaries in proportion to their lands. Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 11/12 The award can be said to be prepared only then and that would be one of the starting point of limitation and any application filed within six months thereof would be within time. Thereafter, pursuant to the award when notices are issued in terms of Section-12 (2) of the Act to the awardees to receive payment would be the second point from which the period of six weeks has to be calculated within which Section-18 reference application has to be filed.
8. Thus, I have no option but to hold that the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif cannot be sustained. The rejection of the applications of the petitioners in all the writ petitions under Section-18 of the Act for referring the matter to the Civil Court, which has been rejected by the impugned orders, has to be set aside. The matter has to be reconsidered by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif in the light of the finding of this Court, as noted above. The matter should be decided individually afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. This entire exercise must be done by the District Land Acquisition Officer within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him.
9. Before parting, I would like to observe one Patna High Court CWJC No.20058 of 2012 (09) dt.07-05-2014 12/12 more thing. Here, we are dealing with the rights of citizens. Properties of citizens have been compulsorily acquired for public purpose. Citizens have a right to receive adequate compensation. State has to give compensation. State, being State, has to act fairly and justly to do what fairness and justice demand. It should not take a legalistic view of the matter to deprive the citizens of their legitimate claims. On mere technicalities the rights of citizens should not be trampled upon.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Trivedi/AFR