Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 816 (JHR)

State Of Bihar v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.

2001-12-15

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard the parties and perused lower Court records. In order to acquire lands at villages Sangjori, Maralari, Pipra Tanr and other villages for construction of an Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was published on 9.8.1956 and 21.4.1964. Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 were also issued therefore. Lands were acquired and awards were prepared, Awardees filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, which were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases in the Court of Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro at Chas. Compensation amount awarded by the Collector under the Act was enhanced on such reference. Execution Cases for realisation of the award amount are pending, disposal. The State of Bihar is judgment-debtor. Decree-holders filed application for attaching properties of the judgment-debtor and orders of attachment were passed thereon. 2. The State of Bihar filed objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code stating therein that compensation amount was liable to be paid by the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant as lands were acquired for the purpose of the plant, which has stepped into the shoes of Hindustan Steel Ltd. According to the judgment-debtor Bokaro Steel Plant was debtor of the State of Bihar and as such request was made to attach the properties of the Plant as garnishee. 3. In some of the execution cases, decree-holders also filed applications under Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Civil Procedure Code for attaching the properties of Bokaro Steel Plant treating them as garnishee of the State of Bihar. 4. Bokaro Steel Plant denied the liabilities and stated that they were not responsible to pay the compensation amount as the Lands were acquired under Part-II of the Act for public purposes and at public expenses. 5. It is relevant to mention that against the decree/award passed in one of the Reference Case No. 360 of 1976, the State of Bihar has preferred F.A. No. 46 of 1991 (R) in this Court, which is pending disposal. In the said appeal. Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant has been added as a party. Executing Court registered 19 Misc. Cases at the instance of the State of Bihar as well as the decree-holders. In the said appeal. Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant has been added as a party. Executing Court registered 19 Misc. Cases at the instance of the State of Bihar as well as the decree-holders. Both, the State of Bihar and Bokaro Steel Plant examined witnesses and also brought on Record various documentary evidence in support of their case and claim. Question of maintainability of garnishee proceeding was also raised. 6. By a common order dated 14.6.2000, Land Acquisition Judge was pleaded to dismiss all the nineteen Misc. Cases holding that eight applications filed by the State of Bihar as Judgment-debtor against Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant as garnishee under Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Code were not maintainable, the State of Bihar had no right to file such applications as there was no order passed under Order XXI, Rule 46 attaching the debt and prohibiting other side in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 46 of Order XXI. Necessary party to the proceeding, the SAIL, a statutory body being successor of B.S.L. was also not made party. It was also observed that lands were acquired under the hope to establish an Iron and Steel Plant by the State of Bihar for benefit of the State and not for BSP/BSL or HSL. Eleven applications filed by the decree-holders were also dismissed holding that they failed to prove the allegations made in their applications that the Managing Director, BSP was the garnishee of the State and was liable to satisfy the decree. They also failed to examine any witness or bring on record any documentary evidence. 7. The State of Bihar has preferred the aforesaid 19 Misc. Appeals challenging the said order dated 14.6.2000, which have been heard together and are disposed of by common order. 8. I find that at the stage of execution, both the judgment-debtor as well as decree-holders made request under Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on notice Bokaro Steel Plant denied its liability to satisfy the award passed under the Act. The executing Court had, therefore, a duty under Rule 46-C of the Code that disputed questions be tried as it were the issue in the suit and to decide the issue. In the impugned order. Court below held that the proceeding was not maintainable at the instance of the judgment-debtor. The executing Court had, therefore, a duty under Rule 46-C of the Code that disputed questions be tried as it were the issue in the suit and to decide the issue. In the impugned order. Court below held that the proceeding was not maintainable at the instance of the judgment-debtor. Once it was found rightly or wrongly that proceeding was not maintainable, there was no occasion for deciding the same on merits. Prayer made under Order XXI, Rule 46 by the decree-holders were also rejected on the ground that they failed to examine any witness or bring on record any documentary evidence. When liability to satisfy the award was being denied by Bokaro Steel Plant, it was their duty to substantiate the claim on evidence. 9. In my opinion, Bokaro Steel Plant was called garnishee in the sense that it had received notice under Order XXI. Rule 46-A of the Code. But it was open to it to contend that it had no liability to satisfy the awards on behalf of the judgment-debtor and the Court below was duty bound to decide it under Order XXI, Rule 46-C of the Code. 10. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Court below to decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties for adducing further evidence, if any. 11. In the aforesaid two Revision Applications which were also directed to be heard with these 19 Misc. Appeals, Managing Director. Bokaro Steel Plant has challenged order dated 14.2.2001 passed in L.A. Reference Case Nos. 2 and 3 of 1998, whereby its application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code to expunge its name from those cases, wherein it was added as opposite party No. 2, was rejected. 12. The aforesaid two Land Acquisition Reference Cases also arose on applications tiled under Section 18 of the Act by the Awardees, whose lands were acquired by the State Government for Construction of Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro. 13. 12. The aforesaid two Land Acquisition Reference Cases also arose on applications tiled under Section 18 of the Act by the Awardees, whose lands were acquired by the State Government for Construction of Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro. 13. On behalf of Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, objection was filed that it was not a person interested within the meaning of the Act and was, therefore, not a necessary party and it did not owe any amount to the State of Bihar and was, therefore, not liable to satisfy the awards in question or any other amount connected therewith. 14. It appears that on the applications filed by the applicants (awardees) on 29.7.1999, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code, by order dated 5.8.1999 SAIL through Managing Director. Bokaro Steel Plant was permitted to be added as a party. After that, notice was sent to the Managing Director to appear in the proceeding. 15. On 23.8.1999. Hazri on behalf of SAIL was filed in both the cases and thereafter on 5.4.2000 written statement along with objection were filed and further on 1.2.2001 another petition under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code was filed on their behalf. 16. In the impugned order dated 14.2.2000, learned Subordinate Judge observed that order dated 5.8.1999 whereby opposite party No. 2 was added as party was a proper order and there was no merit in the said petition dated 1.2.2001 and opposite party No. 2 was directed to participate in the case and cross-examine the witnesses who were already examined by the Applicants (awardees). 17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that lands in question were acquired for construction of Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro and as such without going into the question at this stage as to who was liable to pay compensation, the State of Bihar or the SAIL, opposite party No. 2 was added only treating it to be person interested within the meaning of the Act. The Court below has rightly given opportunity to opposite party No. 2 to cross-examine the witnesses already examined on behalf of the applicants. Opposite Party No. 2 is also at liberty to adduce evidence, if any, in these proceedings. 18. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, under Section 115 of the Code. 19. In the result, Misc. Opposite Party No. 2 is also at liberty to adduce evidence, if any, in these proceedings. 18. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, under Section 115 of the Code. 19. In the result, Misc. Appeal Nos. 116 to 134 of 2000(R) are allowed and the cases are remanded and Civil Revision Nos. 98 and 120 of 2001 are dismissed.