Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 3 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Deomani Bhagat

1980-01-05

CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, HARI LAL AGRAWAL

body1980
Judgment CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, J. 1. All these five appeals arise out of a decision dated the 8th Jan. 1971 of the Land Acquisition Judge on a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") by the Collector, Shahabad. 2. The acquisitions of the lands in question were made for the construction of Parabuti Distributory in the district of Sahabad. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was locally published on the 15th October, 1963, though it was published in the Official Gazette dated the 5th of February, 1964. 3. We are concerned with the lands of two Mouzas in these appeals, namely, Mousas Gamharia and Sainha. The Collector awarded compensation to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 1,600.00 per acre and Rs. 2,000.00 per acre for the lands of Mouzas Saina and Gamharia, respectively, in spite of the claim of the applicants for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per acre. 4. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, both oral and documentary, the land Acquisition Judge allowed compensation for the lands of the two Mouzas at a flat rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per acre which included the benefits on account of the potential value of the lands acquired. This is how the State of Bihar has come up to this Court in these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the State raised a short question in these appeals, the contention being that as there was no valid objection raised by the applicants at the stage of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Judge acted illegally in enhancing the valuation of the lands. No other contention having been raised before this Court, the decision on this point will dispose of these appeals, 6. Sec.18 of the Act speaks of written application to the Collector by the person concerned. It is undisputed that such written applications were made by the applicants before the Collector which gave rise to the reference under Sec.18 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act deals with a stage earlier to the determination of the compensation by the Collector. Sec.18 of the Act speaks of written application to the Collector by the person concerned. It is undisputed that such written applications were made by the applicants before the Collector which gave rise to the reference under Sec.18 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act deals with a stage earlier to the determination of the compensation by the Collector. Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the Act states, inter alia, that the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at convenient places, stating the intention of the Government to acquire the lands and further that claims to compensation for full interests in such lands may be made to him. In addition to the public notice envisaged in Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 necessitates issue of notice to all persons interested in the lands asking them to appear personally or by agent before him, that is to say, the Collector, at a time and place mentioned therein and to state, inter alia, about the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation. The last sentence of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act is to be significantly noticed. It states that the Collector may on a case require such statement, referred to in the earlier part of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 to be made in writing and sighed by the party or his agent. 7. A close reading of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the objections contemplated in that Sub-Section can legally an validly be made orally, though in appropriate cases the Collector may require the persons interested to submit the statements in writing duly signed by them or their agent. Apart from the language of Section 9(2) of the Act, the purpose for which it was enacted, does not also necessitate the filing of written objections. Whatever be the objection made on receipt of the notice they are to be enquired into by the Collector under Sec.11 of the Act and there c be no legal difficulty in the Collector holding the enquiry of giving appropriate decision about the amount to deny awarded on the oral objections raised. 8. Whatever be the objection made on receipt of the notice they are to be enquired into by the Collector under Sec.11 of the Act and there c be no legal difficulty in the Collector holding the enquiry of giving appropriate decision about the amount to deny awarded on the oral objections raised. 8. Non-compliance with the provision of Section 9 of the Act and the failure to make claim may debar the claimants from claiming a large sum than that awarded by the Collector. This may not, however, stand in the way of the applicants, as their specific case; which has been accepted by the court below, and in my opinion rightly, is that on receipt of the notice the applicants had raised objections before the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the higher amount of compensation to be awarded. Two witnesses, both of whom are awardees, have deposed on oath about raising oral objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. They use A.W. 1 and A.W. 5. A.W. 5 has named all the applicants as the who had raised objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination of any of these two witnesses for which their sworn testimony which appears to be consistent and convincing should be discarded. True it is that both of them are interested witnesses but on this ground alone their statements should not be thrown aside it they are otherwise acceptable and reliable. The sole witness on behalf of the State to dispute this assertion made on behalf of the applicants is A.W. 1. A Kanoongo, presumably of the Land Acquisition Officer and he cannot be regarded as a competent witness to deny the assertions by A.Ws. 1 and 5. This part, as his very statement in examination-in-chief indicates his evidence on this point is shaky. The court below was, therefore, justified in accepting the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants that there were verbal objections by all the applicant-respondents before the Land Acquisition Officer on receipt of the notice under Section 9 of the Act. 9. No other contention having been raised, these appeals are held to be without merit and are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs of these appeals and the parties shall bear their own costs. 10. 9. No other contention having been raised, these appeals are held to be without merit and are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs of these appeals and the parties shall bear their own costs. 10. HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J. :- I entirely agree with all that has fallen from my learned brother. But since a question of law has been raised in these cases on which no decision of this Court was cited at the Bar, I would like to add a few observations of my own. The question being as to whether an oral objection under Section 9(2) of the Act can be deemed to be valid in the eye of law. By the scheme of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act it becomes abundantly clear that a statement in writing is to be made by the persons interested only when required by the Collector in that behalf. Wherever the legislature has intended a written objection or application, it has specifically said so, for example, when an application is contemplated for making a reference to the Court, Sec.18 of the Act speaks of "a written application". Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act simply "requires all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before......... to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests....." The above provision, therefore, contemplates a statement to be made by the persons interested and that apparently has to be made orally, as already said earlier, unless of course the Collector wants them to make a statement in writing. In that case he may require a written statement, otherwise the statement made orally by a person interested, would be deemed to fulfil the requirement of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9. I find full support for this view, from a Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ekkara Parambil Moideen Koya Haji V/s. The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, AIR 1963 Ker 194 where it was laid down by the learned Judges that there was no mandatory provision that the statement under Section 9(2) of the Act must be in writing. This Section simply gives a discretion to the Collector to require such statement to be made in writing. This Section simply gives a discretion to the Collector to require such statement to be made in writing. From the evidence on the record, as has been fully discussed by my learned brother, it is evident that objections as contemplated under Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, were made by the awardees. Therefore, the question raised by the learned counsel for the State has got no substance and is rightly rejected.