Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 July, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1532 of 2017
Deepak Kumar Verma ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi
3. Certificate Officer, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
Miss Pooja Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Shamim Akhtar, GA-III Mr. Fahad Allam, AC to GA-III
-----
Order No. 09 Dated: 16.07.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the certificate proceeding in connection with 15(Misc.)/15-16, whereby the respondent no. 3 - Certificate Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 01.02.2016 has initiated certificate proceeding for recovery of the amount of compensation received by the petitioner in Land Acquisition Case No. 09/2008-09.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer to the extent of quashing the orders of distress warrant as well as bailable warrant issued against the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 in the aforesaid certificate proceeding.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on filing of the requisition before the respondent no. 3 for recovery of the compensation amount from the petitioner, a notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1914") was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 01.02.2016. However, without ensuring the proper service of notice upon the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 11.04.2016 issued the distress warrant against the petitioner. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.06.2016, bailable warrant was issued by the respondent no. 3 2 against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 11.08.2016, the petitioner appeared through his lawyer in the said certificate proceeding and filed an objection. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the said objection filed by the petitioner was for recall of the distress/bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner at that stage could not file the objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without recalling the distress/bailable warrant and providing due opportunity to the petitioner to file appropriate objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the respondent no. 3 has been proceeding ahead with the certificate case.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 stating inter alia that the petitioner had wrongfully received the compensation amount in the Land Acquisition Case No. 09/2008-09, despite the fact that the land in question was already sold by him to Smt. Pawan Rekha Devi. After noticing the said fact, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and the requisition for initiation of the certificate proceeding for recovery of the compensation amount wrongly paid to the petitioner has been filed in the court of respondent no. 3.
6. Be that as it may. The respondent no. 3 has not filed any counter-affidavit in this case. On perusal of the copy of the order-sheet of the concerned certificate proceeding annexed with the writ petition, it appears that in pursuance of filing of the requisition by the respondent no. 2, a notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 was issued by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 01.02.2016. The order-sheet does not suggest that the said notice was properly served upon the petitioner. However, vide order dated 01.02.2016, the respondent no. 3 issued distress warrant against the petitioner and subsequently on 22.06.2016, a bailable warrant was issued to him. The said order-sheet reveals that the respondent no. 3 without waiting for proper service of notice upon the petitioner and providing sufficient time to him to appear in the said certificate proceeding, hurriedly issued the distress and bailable warrants to the petitioner dehors the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1914. It is a settled 3 law that unless an order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 is passed by the Certificate Officer, the distress warrant/bailable warrant cannot be issued to the certificate debtor as a coercive measure to recover the certificate amount. In that view of the matter, the distress warrant issued vide order dated 11.04.2016 and bailable warrant issued vide order dated 22.06.2016 cannot be sustained in law and thus the same are quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3, who shall provide two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the petitioner to file his objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. On filing of the said objection, the respondent no. 3 after considering the same and affording due opportunity to the petitioner/his representative, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the certificate proceeding for expeditious disposal of the same.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish