Raghvendra Singh v. Kisanvikas Samittee,State Of Bihar
2001-10-16
S.K.KATRIAR
body2001
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. CWJC No. 4973 of 2001 has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram), passed in Misc. Case No. 32 of 2000, whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for getting compensation for the lands acquired by the authorities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), with the further direction to the respondents to make payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner. CWJC No. 11559 of 2001 has been preferred for a similar relief. Both raise common questions of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts are entirely taken from CWJC No. 4973 of 2001. The basic facts to adjudicate the questions of law common to both. Therefore, there is no need to state the facts of CWJC No. 11559 of 2001. The Indian Railways requisitioned on 18.12.98 lands for setting up the broad gauge Ara-Sasaram railway. The same was approved by the State Government on 4.9.99. Publication of notice under Section 4 of the Central Act appeared in the Gazette and two newspapers of 15.10.99. After following the procedure prescribed under the Central Act, the lands were acquired which ultimately vested in the State Government. Thus, it ultimately resulted in acquisition of 25.49 acres, including 9.07 acres bearing chak no. 765 whicn was made of revisional survey plot nos. 1057, 1059, 1060 and 1063. These revisional survey plots belonged to respondent nos. 4 to 7, and others not parties in this writ petition, who contributed the same towards making of the said chak no. 765, situate at village Kharasi, district Rohtas. The said chak no. 765 belonged to the petitioner who (along with others who are not the petitioners herein) had given their own plots of land in return which went into a common hotchpotch for completion of the scheme under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Bihar Act). The consolidation proceeding under the Bihar Act had commenced long time ago in village Kharasi during the course of which chak plot no. 765 was created, measuring 9.07 acres and was allotted to the petitioner. There was temporary stay of delivery of possession of the chaks under the Bihar Act, vide letter no.
The consolidation proceeding under the Bihar Act had commenced long time ago in village Kharasi during the course of which chak plot no. 765 was created, measuring 9.07 acres and was allotted to the petitioner. There was temporary stay of delivery of possession of the chaks under the Bihar Act, vide letter no. 1603, dated 16.6.1981, issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas. However, according to the petitioner, delivery of possession of the said chak no. 765 had been made over to the petitioner, but the State Government has taken the stand that the same was illegal in view of the aforesaid order dt. 16.6.81. Thereafter the State Government issued the notification dt. 27.7.1998 under Section 4A(1) of the Bihar Act, whereby the notification under Section 3 was cancelled. 3. The petitioner filed objection dt. 18.7.2000 (Annexure 5) before the Collector of the district of Rohtas under Section 9(2) of the Central Act, claiming compensation on the basis of ownership of chak no. 765. The same perhaps remained unattended and, therefore, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 11211 of 2000 (Raghavendra Singh V/s. State of Bihar), which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Order dt. 10.11.2000 (Annexure 6). The same is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference, whereby the Collector of the district was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners petition under Section 9 read with Section 11 of the Central Act" within a period of three months : "Heard the parties. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that his objection filed pursuant to a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act has yet not been heard by the Collector as required by section 11 of the said Act and he has apprehension that without hearing him the award may be prepared in the name of other persons. Such apprehension is not warranted in view of provisions of Section 11 of the Act which provides for an enquiry by the Collector into the objections which any person interested may file pursuant to notice under section 9 of the Act.
Such apprehension is not warranted in view of provisions of Section 11 of the Act which provides for an enquiry by the Collector into the objections which any person interested may file pursuant to notice under section 9 of the Act. Since the petitioner has claimed that he has filed an objection contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application before the Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram in connection with Land Acquisition Case No. 14/V/2000-2001 in July 2000 hence, it is expected that the Collector concerned shall consider the objections of the petitioner in accordance with law before making an award in favour of any person and before payment of compensation in terms of such award. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and Collector be free to decide the objections of the petitioner on its own merits, at an earlier date preferably within three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order before the respondent no.2, the Collector, Rohtas. This writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms." 4. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the learned Collector has passed the impugned order dated 23.2.2001 (Annexure 8), in Misc. Case No. 32 of 2000, whereby he has rejected the petitioners objection in substance on two grounds, namely, the entire proceedings under the Central Act had proceeded on the basis of the revisional plots, and 80% of the compensation amount has been paid to the owners of the revisional plots, namely, respondent nos. 4 to 7 and others. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the scheme of the Act and submitted that the learned Collector has erred in holding that the proceedings under the Central Act had proceeded on the basis of revisional records which is not warranted by the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bihar Act. He next submits that the respondents have taken the erroneous stand that in view of the notification under Section 4A(1) of the Act, the entire proceeding is completely wiped off. In his submission, the notification operates prospectively. The orders under Section 37A of the Act are protected in view of the provisions of Section 4A (2) of the Act.
He next submits that the respondents have taken the erroneous stand that in view of the notification under Section 4A(1) of the Act, the entire proceeding is completely wiped off. In his submission, the notification operates prospectively. The orders under Section 37A of the Act are protected in view of the provisions of Section 4A (2) of the Act. He next submits that in view of the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of the Bihar Act, the confirmed scheme has to be treated as finally published record-of-rights and the chak-holder shall have the same right and title as that of the original landholder. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in 1974 PLJR 27 (Nand Kumar Rai & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.), and 1979 BBCJ 259 : 1979 PLJR 161 (Ram Krit Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). 6. Mr. S. J. Rahman, learned Govt. Pleader No. II, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, has submitted in opposition that in view of the notification dt. 27.7.98 under Section 4A(1) of the Act, the notification under Section 3 of the Act was cancelled as a result of which the entire consolidation proceeding stood wiped off. He next submits that the petitioners objection dt. 18.7.2000 (Annexure 5) was under Section 9 of the Act which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 23.2.2001 (Annexure 8). In his submission, the petitioners remedy is under Section 18 of the Central Act. He relies on the judgments of this Court reported in 1993 (2) Bihar Law Judgments 276 (Bishun Rai V/s. State of Bihar) and 1995(2) PLJR 880 (Bihar Rajya Adhivakta Sangh V/s. State of Bihar). He next submitted that 80% of the compensation amount has been disbursed and made over to the owners of the revisional plots, namely, respondent nos. 4 to 7 and others. 7. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7 have supported the stand taken by learned GP VII. He has in addition submitted that respondent nos. 3 to 7 were althrough in possession and paid rent and are in possession of rent receipts until they were deprived of possession of the lands under the Central Act. He next submits that the proceedings under the Central Act were as per the revisional survey plots.
He has in addition submitted that respondent nos. 3 to 7 were althrough in possession and paid rent and are in possession of rent receipts until they were deprived of possession of the lands under the Central Act. He next submits that the proceedings under the Central Act were as per the revisional survey plots. He also submits that the stage of Section 26A of the Bihar Act never reached and no notification thereunder was ever issued. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed. Learned Govt. Pleader is right in his submission that once notification under Section 4A(1) of the Act was issued, cancelling the notification made under Section 3, the entire consolidation proceedings which had taken place till then was wiped off. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the notification under Section 4A(1) of the Act is prospective in operation is stated only to be rejected. The same would make the position anomalous and the Act unworkable, say, for example, in a situation where the consolidation proceedings are hal, way through and the notification under Section 4A(1) has been issued, the petitioners contention would mean that half-prepared chaks would go to the chak holder, and the balance half of the contributing land would go back to the revisional survey Khatian holders. In my view, the obvious legal consequence of the notification under Section 4A(1) of the Act is that the original owners of the lands who have contributed for creation of the chaks become owners of their lands, as if the chaks had never been created. Secondly, the consolidation proceedings would be deemed in law to have completed after the scheme is finally approved under Section 13 of the Bihar Act, and the consequential steps of issuance of certificate of transfer in terms of Section 15 of 1he Bihar Act have been issued giving rise to the legal right in favour of the chak-holder in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bihar Act. The meaning and content of Section 4A(1) of the Act comes out clearly when read in juxtaposition with Section 26A of the Act. The former provides for complete cancellation of the notification under Section 3 and the consolidation proceedings which have taken place till then.
The meaning and content of Section 4A(1) of the Act comes out clearly when read in juxtaposition with Section 26A of the Act. The former provides for complete cancellation of the notification under Section 3 and the consolidation proceedings which have taken place till then. On the other hand, the provision of Section 26A contemplates a situation of successful completion of the consolidation proceeding. The scheme of the Act does not support the concept of golden mean, thus far and no more, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Govt. Pleader is, therefore, right in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bishun Rai (supra). I must sound a note of caution that the judgment was really under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, but the same in principle and spirit supports the contention advanced by the learned Govt. Pleader. 9. Learned Govt. Pleader is further right in his submission that the petitioners remedy is under Section 18 of the Central Act. The present writ petition really arises out of the petitioners objection dt. 18.7.2000 (Annexure 5), submitted under Section 9(2) of the Central Act. The aforesaid CWJC No. 11211 of 2000 also related to the disposal of the petitioners said objection under Section 9 of the Central Act. This Court by its order dated 10.11.2000 (Annexure 6) had directed the Collector of the district to dispose of the petitioners objection in terms of Section 9 read with Section 11 of the Central Act, which has been disposed of by the impugned order. It is thus manifest that the present writ petition relates to the question as to the persons to whom the compensation under the Central Act is payable. This is clearly and entirely covered by the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Act which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : 18. Reference to Court (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every such application shall be made, (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of Collectors award; (b) in other case, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-Section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.(emphasis mine) In that view of the matter, this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners remedy was under Section 18 of the Central Act. 10. The learned Govt. Pleader is equally right in his submission that the position has become rather irreversible. As is manifest from the impugned order, 80% of the compensation amount has already been disbursed and handed over to the owners of the revisional survey plots, i.e. respondent nos. 4 to 7 (and others who are not parties to this writ petition). The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : (Local language) 11. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.