Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 59 (PAT)

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar

1997-01-26

NAGENDRA RAI, S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body1997
JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai & S.K. Chattopadhyay, JJ.— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.88 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which he has allowed the writ application filed by the respondents no. 3 & 4 and has held that the Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 7/1965-66 has lapsed due to non-publication of the Award within two years from the date of coming into force of Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While coming to the said finding the learned single judge has held that the Award purported to have been made on 23rd September, 1986 is manipulated and antedated. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :- A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of the land for the Coal Board. The said case was numbered as Land Acquisition Case no. 7/1965-66. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 31st July, 1964. In the mean-time the Coal Board was dissolved and the assets and liabilities of the Coal Board were vested with the appellant vide notification dated 1.4.75 issued under Coal Mines Minerals (Conservation and Safety) Act. Thereafter, the appellant requested the Land Acquisition Officer for delivery of possession. On 24.2.83 the possession was given to the appellant. While Land Acquisition Proceeding was going on the respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed C.W.J.C. No. 464/83 (R) challenging the land acquisition proceeding primarily on the ground of delay in its conclusion. In the said application an order of status quo was passed on 23.3.83. On 24.9.84 the Land Acquisition Act was amended by the Act 68/84 and Section 11A was inserted, which provides the period within which the Award shall be made. According to the said provision the Award has to be made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no Award is made within the aforesaid period the entire proceeding of the Land Acquisition shall lapse. It was provided in the proviso that in case where declaration has already been published before the commencement of the Act no. 68/84 in that case the Award has to be prepared within two years from such commencement. 3. It was provided in the proviso that in case where declaration has already been published before the commencement of the Act no. 68/84 in that case the Award has to be prepared within two years from such commencement. 3. It appears from the record that on 20.5.85 the interim order was vacated and this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to conclude the proceeding within six months. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 23.9.86 and ordered for issuance' of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the respondents no. 3 & 4 filed an amendment application on 20.8.87 praying therein that as the Award has not been prepared within two years from the date of commencement of the Act the Land Acquisition Proceeding has lapsed. The said matter was finally heard by a learned single Judge of this Court and who by the impugned judgment dated 12.7.88, as stated above, has held that the Land Acquisition Proceeding has lapsed on account of non-preparation of the Award within two years from the date of commencement of the Act. 4. The appellant filed L.PA. being L.PA. No. 59/1986(R) against the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed on 7.3.87 and thereafter the appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appl. No. 8435/89 and the said appeal was allowed on 20th November, 1990 and the judgment dated 7.3.89 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.PA. No. 59/88 was set aside. The apex Court directed that the finding, as recorded by the learned single judge that the records of the Land Acquisition Proceeding have been doctored and tampered with should not have been arrived at on the meagre circumstances relied upon by the writ petitioners. The parties should have been permitted to lead the evidence on this seriously contested issue before recording a finding. However, since the matter is an old one it will be expedient that the Letters Patent bench itself examines this issue after permitting the parties to lead the evidence. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the apex Court the matter has been placed before us. 5. However, since the matter is an old one it will be expedient that the Letters Patent bench itself examines this issue after permitting the parties to lead the evidence. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the apex Court the matter has been placed before us. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not produce or adduce any evidence whereas on our direction the State has produced the original records of the Land Acquisition Case and has also filed an affidavit annexing a letter of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 2nd April, 1983, which will be discussed at a proper place. 6. The only ground for holding that that the Land Acquisition Proceeding has lapsed is that the ordersheet of the Land. Acquisition Proceeding is antedated and manufactured. For coming to the said conclusion the learned single judge has relied upon the fact that though the order sheet dated 23.9.86 shows that the award was prepared on the same date and the notices were also issued to the interested persons for the disbursement of the awarded amount under Section 12(2) of the Act the subequent order dated 24.9.86 shows that a direction was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Amin and the Kanongo to make spot enquiry with reference to the raiyats whose names appear in the schedule on the ground that the schedule was very old. The other ground given was that the order dated 22.5.87 shows that the notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on that day, if the notices were issued on 22.5.87 then how the notices will bear a date of 23rd September, 1986. 7. We have perused the records. We are of the view that on the basis of the aforesaid two grounds it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the documents have been manipulated or antedated. The order dated 24.9.86 has been recalled by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 25.4.87 as it was found by him that the Award has already been prepared. Thus, the subsequent order dated 24.9.86 appears to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer due to mistake. Original notices produced before us show that on• 23.9.86 in pursuance of an order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. Thus, the subsequent order dated 24.9.86 appears to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer due to mistake. Original notices produced before us show that on• 23.9.86 in pursuance of an order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. The subsequent order dated 22.5.87 for issuance of notice under Section 12(2) appears to have been passed with regard to the raiyats who had not appeared inspite of the service of notice in pursuance of order dated 29.3.86. This inference is further strengthened by the fact that the notices have been received by some of the awardees after 22.5.87. Thus, the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that only because an order was passed for issuance of notice on 22.5.87 there was manipulation in the record showing that the award was prepared on 23.9.86. 8. After having considered the records produced before us and in absence of any material brought by the writ petitioners/respondents to show manipulation in the ordersheets, we are of the view that in this case the Award was prepared on 23.9.86 which is admittedly within two years from the date of commencement of the amendment provision which came into force on 24.9.84. Thus, as the Award was prepared within two years the Land Acquisition Proceeding cannot lapse. This apart there is another ground also to hold that the Land Acquisition Proceeding has not lapsed. 9. From perusal of the ordersheets it appears that the appellant after the publication of the declaration prayed before the Land Acquisition Officer for delivery of possession of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer delivered the possession to the appellant on 24.2.83. From the letter dated 24th April, 83 written by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant it appears that the said possession was delivered under Section 17(1) of the Act. The ordersheets further show that the possession as a matter of fact has been given to the appellant in pursuance of the order of the land Acquisition Officer. 10. It is well settled that once the possession is taken under Section 17(1) of the Act then the provision of Section 11 A of the Act is not attracted (See, Awadh Bihari and others vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 122 : 1995 (2) PLJR 105 (SC)). So on this ground also the Land Acquisition Proceeding cannot lapse. So on this ground also the Land Acquisition Proceeding cannot lapse. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The appellant is directed to pay the compensation amounts to the respondents together with solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% till the payment of compensation is made.