Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 809 (JHR)

Mosstt. Hira Devi v. Ram Kumar Thakur

2001-12-12

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J.-74 decimals land, out of total 22.18 acres of Khata No. 55 situated in village Pokhrahakalan, district Palamu, was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Canal. Award No.8 was prepared in the name of Ganga Ram and others for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 30,932.92 paise for acquisition of the said land. 2. Ram Kumar Thakur and Krishna Kumar Thakur, both sons of Mahavir Thakur filed objection to the said Award and claimed 11/25th share therein on the basis of purchase by their deceased mother. As such they claimed Rs. 14924.82 paise out of the aforesaid Rs. 30,932.92 paise to be paid to them. Their claim of apportionment of the said Award was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No. 11 of 1986. 3. Admittedly, the land in question belonged to Amrit Ram, who left behind five sons, namely, Nathuni Ram, Supan Ram, Siraj Ram, Bahadur Ram and Kauleshwar Ram. Supan Ram left behind four sons, namely, Sardar Ram, Lakhan Ram, Kesho Ram and Gannu Ram. Bahadur Ram also left behind four sons, Ganesh Ram, Dinesh alias, Sitaram Ram, Sugriv Ram and Ganga Ram. 4. According to the applicants, Nathuni Ram sold his 1/5th share in Khata No. 55 by registered sale deed dated 26.5.1953 (Exhibit-1) to their mother Yadubanshi Devi, She also purchased the share of Kauleshwar Ram by registered sale deed dated 19.6.1953 (Exhibit 1/A). Lakhan Ram, son of Supan Ram, also sold his 1/4th share in 1/5th share of his father to their mother by registered sale deed dated 5.6.1964 (Exhibit 1/B). Siraj Ram sold his share to Yadubanshi Devi by registered sale deed dated 12.6.1954 (Exhibit 1/C). Widow and four sons of Bahadur Ram also transferred their 1/5th share to their mother by registered sale deed 21.5.1959 (Exhibit 1/D). In this manner, she purchased 11/25 share and so applicants advanced their claim for compensation to that extent. 5. The opposite parties in whose names Award No. 8 was prepared denied the aforesaid transfers and applicants' interest, if any, in the land acquired for the purpose of canal. 6. The Subordinate Judge held that the applicants' mother had purchased all-together 9/20th shares in the land acquired and as such they were entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,920/- in the amount of compensation of Rs. 6. The Subordinate Judge held that the applicants' mother had purchased all-together 9/20th shares in the land acquired and as such they were entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,920/- in the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,932.92 paise. Hence, direction was given to prepare the Award for Rs. 13,920/- in the names of Ram Kumar Thakur and Krishna Kumar Thakur, both sons of Late Mahavir Thakur jointly and for the balance amount of Rs. 17,012.92 paise in the names of the opposite parties. 7. Babulal Ram, opposite party no. 6, therefore, preferred the present appeal and also tiled a petition under Order 41, rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. On 3.7.1986 for admitting certified copy of order dated 6/ 12.2.1996 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Daltonganj, in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1995-96 and rent receipt dated 11.6.1996 issued by the State Government for 24.2-1/3 acres land of Khata Nos. 54 and 55, in the name of Siraj Ram and others, which by order dated 12.12.1996 was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. Babulal Ram died during pendency of the present appeal and thereafter his name was expunged and his heirs were substituted in his place. 9. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that during pendency of this appeal, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed Misc. Case No. 12 of 1995-96 for cancellation of jamabandi in respect of lands of Khata Nos. 54 and 55 which was dropped with observation that the petitioners may go to the competent civil court for proper decision in the matter and till then revenue will be realized from opposite parties Ramlakhan Ram and others on the basis of existing jamabandi and accordingly rent receipt was issued on 11.6.1996. 10. Those papers are not relevant for the decision in the present appeal as on reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Subordinate Judge had already decided the claim of respondents 1 and 2 by the impugned judgment. Therefore, prayer for admitting those papers in additional evidence in the present appeal is rejected. 11. In his deposition as opposite party no. Therefore, prayer for admitting those papers in additional evidence in the present appeal is rejected. 11. In his deposition as opposite party no. 3 Ram Lakhan denied to have executed sale deed dated 5.6.1984 (Exhibit 1/8) in respect of his 1/20th share in the suit land, but from perusal of impugned judgment it appears that learned Sub-Ordinate Judge has failed to record any finding in respect of sale deeds, (Exhibit 1 series) including (Exhibit 1/8). 12. In my opinion, in the present proceeding on reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was incumbent upon the court below to go into the question of title of applicants based on purchase through the aforesaid sale deeds, (Exhibit 1 series) and to record a definite finding about their right, title, interest and possession over portion of the land in question based thereon. 13. It goes without saying that the decision on reference under Section 30 is final so far as applicants' right, title, interest and possession over the land in question is concerned. 14.1, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 30.3.1991 and remit the matter to the Court below to dispose of the case afresh on its own merit and in accordance with law, after taking further evidence, if any, adduced by parties. 15. This appeal is disposed of with aforesaid direction, but without costs. Lover court records may be sent down.