Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 394 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad

2006-05-01

SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2006
Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 1.7.1974 passed in L.A. Case No. 15/10 of 1973 by the Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge IVth, Motihari, whereby he has been pleased to fix the valuation of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,000.00 per acre with 15% additional compensation and interest a 6% per annum and has also held that the petition filed by the applicants for enhancement of valuation of land was within time and not barred by limitation. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The case of the applicants, in short, is that 88 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 458 under Khata No. 3 of village Pipra belonging to the applicants-respondents was acquired by the State Government for implementation of Lateral Road Project and construction of road from Muzaffarpur to Pipra Kothi. Some other lands belonging to the family members of the applicants were also acquired in connection with the project and, accordingly, notices were Issued to the applicants and others. Further case Is that the Land Acquisition Officer, Champaran, fixed the valuation of the land at Rs. 3721.62 paisa and accordingly Award No. 5 was prepared in the name of the applicants in connection with this acquisition. The objection of the applicants is that the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and in the vicinity the valuation of similar type of land is Rs. 30,000.00 per acre. The acquired land, in question, is very valuable being close to Pipra Bazar and nearer to Main Road. Shops and schools are situated by the side of the land and, therefore, the valuation of acquired land can not be assessed below rupees twenty five thousand per acre. Further case is that Award No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 along with Award, in question (Award No. 5) were prepared for an area of 2.71 acre in the name of the applicants and their brothers and, as such, the applicants and his brothers had filed joint objection petition regarding the low valuation of the land. Further case is that Award No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 along with Award, in question (Award No. 5) were prepared for an area of 2.71 acre in the name of the applicants and their brothers and, as such, the applicants and his brothers had filed joint objection petition regarding the low valuation of the land. The said joint petition was filed on 22.4.1967 and the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the District Judge u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in connection with Award No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 but so far Award No. 5 is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer directed the applicants to file a separate application and, as such, the applicants filed separate application u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the matter was referred to the District Judge on the basis of which Land Acquisition Case No. 15/10 of 1973 was instituted which was disposed of by the Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge 4th, Motihari, on 1st July, 1974. It appears that the State of Bihar appeared and contested the claim of the applicants but did not choose to file any rejoinder. 3. From the perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, 4th, Motihari, it, appears that he has formulated two points for determination in the case which are as follows: I. What was the correct value of the acquired land in December, 1965, when this was acquired ? II. Whether the reference is barred by limitation 4 It appears that after scrutinising the oral as well as documentary evidence on record the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the valuation fixed by the State Government for acquired land is very low and, as such, he held that the applicants are entitled to receive valuation of their acquired land @ Rs. 12,000.00 per acre with 15% additional compensation over the increased amount of valuation and interest @ 6% per annum since the date of dispossession. On point No. II, the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge held that the application is within time and hence this case is not barred by limitation. 5. The contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant is that both the findings are erroneous and against the material available on record. On point No. II, the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge held that the application is within time and hence this case is not barred by limitation. 5. The contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant is that both the findings are erroneous and against the material available on record. Further contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant is that u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the application was hopelessly barred by limitation and, as such, by allowing the application the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge has committed gross error of law and, as such, his prayer is to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of the Sub-Ordinate Judge. 6. The question before me is that whether the findings of the Additional Sub-Ordinte Judge that the applicants are entitled to receive the valuation of their acquired land @ Rs. 12000.00 per acre with 15% additional compensation and 6% interest per annum is correct and whether the findings that the application under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the applicants was within time and the same was not barred by limitation is correct. POINT No. I: 7. From the perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge as well as from the perusal of the record it appears that for implementation of Lateral Road Project between Muzaffarpur and Pipra Kothi 2.71 acre of land belonging to the family members of the applicants were acquired and Award No. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were prepared in connection with the said acquisition. It further transpires that on 1.4.67 the applicants received award money under protest and on 22.4.1967 a joint petition was filed by the applicants and their brothers before the Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference of the matter to the District Judge for reassessment of valuation of the land. It further transpires that the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the District Judge so far Award No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were concerned and with respect of Award No. 5, he directed the applicants to file separate petition, It further transpires that on 21.3.70 the applicants filed objection petition which was received in the Land Acquisition Office on 26.3.70. 8. 8. From the perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge as well as from the perusal of the lower court records it appears that in support of the case that the valuation of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 25,000.00 per acre, the applicants have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. As regards the oral evidence, A.W.1 is Ram Mohan Singh, A.W.2 is Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, A.W.3 is Sushil Kumar and A.W.4 is Kamla Prasad Gupta. Out of the above four witnesses, A.W.2 Rameshwar Prasad Gupta and A.W.4 Kamla Prasad Gupta are the applicants in this case. They have fully supported the contents of their objection petition and have deposed that the valuation of the acquired land can not be less than Rs. 25,000.00 per acre. A.W.1 Ram Mohan Singh claims that he had purchased land in the vicinity of the acquired land through Exhibit-1 and 1/A and has deposed that the valuation of the acquired land is about 25-30 thousand per acre. A.W.3 Sushil Kumar has also deposed that the valuation of the acquired land is Rs. 25,000.00 per acre. The evidence of above said witnesses establishes that they all have supported this fact that the valuation of the acquired land can not be less than Rs. 25,000.00 per acre. It further transpires that in support of valuation, the applicants have brought some sale deeds said to be the sale deeds of adjacent land which are exhibit-1 series. The applicants have also filed the certified copy of judgment passed in connection with reference with respect of Award No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which has been marked Exhibit-2 in this case. 9. On the point of valuation, the evidence of O.P.W.3 Mahesh Chandra Singh and O.P.W.4 Nand Kishore Pathak is also of much importance, O.P.W.3 Mahesh Chandra Singh was the Land Acquisition Officer, Motihari, between 1965 to 1968. In his evidence, he has admitted that the land of other brothers were also acquired for implementation of the scheme and other brothers of the applicants were paid compensation for the acquired land. He admitted that this land and the other land belonging to the brothers of the applicant acquired in connection with implementation of the scheme were of similar nature. He also admitted the existence of High School, Hospital and Pacca road near the acquired land. He admitted that this land and the other land belonging to the brothers of the applicant acquired in connection with implementation of the scheme were of similar nature. He also admitted the existence of High School, Hospital and Pacca road near the acquired land. O.P.W.4 Nand Kishore Pathak, who works as Surveyor in the Land Acquisition Office Motihari, has also deposed that the acquired land lies near the National Highway and High School as well as State Dispensary are situated near the acquired land. Thus, the evidence of above said witnesses establishes that the acquired land is situated near Pacca road and there are High school and Hospital near the acquired land which goes to show that the land is a valuable land. The evidence of O.P.W.3 establishes that for similar nature of land compensation were awarded to other brothers of the applicants and as per Exhibit-2 the valuation of the land belonging to the brothers of the applicants was fixed at Rs. 12,000.00 per acre. Since it has been admitted by O.P.W. 3 and 4 that nature of this land and the nature of the land belonging to the brothers of the accused are similar, as such, I am of the view that different valuation for similar type of land can not be fixed. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Additional subordinate Judge has rightly fixed the valuation of the acquired land belonging to the applicants at Rs. 12,000.00 per acre and there is no reasonable ground before me for forming a different opinion from the opinion formed by the learned Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge regarding the valuation of the acquired land. Accordingly, I hold that the valuation of the acquired land fixed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge is correct and reasonable and, hence, the finding of the court below that the applicants are entitled to get valuation of their acquired land @ Rs. 12,000.00 per acre with 15% as additional compensation over the increased amount of valuation and interest @ 6% per annum over the increased amount since the date of dispossession is hereby upheld and confirmed. Accordingly, Point No. I is decided. POINT No. II : 10. It has been argued on behalf of the learned advocate of the appellant that the application u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed on behalf of the applicants was hopelessly time barred. Accordingly, Point No. I is decided. POINT No. II : 10. It has been argued on behalf of the learned advocate of the appellant that the application u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed on behalf of the applicants was hopelessly time barred. He has argued that Award No. 5 was prepared on 1.4.67 but the objection petition was filed on 1,3.70, He submitted that according to sec. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, objection against the award should have been filed within six weeks from the date of the order but the record will show that the objection petition was filed on 1.3.70 meaning thereby that the same was filed after two yeas eleven months from the date of preparation of the award and, therefore, the applicants application should have been disallowed on this score alone. Against the said argument, the learned advocate of the respondents submitted that it is not a fact that objection petition u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed on 21.3.70, rather, the record will show that the joint objection petition was filed against the award only after twenty one days of the preparation of the award i.e. on 22.4.67 but the said joint application was misplaced in the office. He submitted that this fact has not been denied by the authorities of Land Acquisition Department, rather, the same stands admitted. He submitted that the subsequent filing of the application on 21.3.70 was merely a formality in order to bring on record the objection petition of the applicants and so this date cannot be a basis for calculating the period of limitation. I fully agree with the argument of learned advocate of respondents as the same appears to be in accordance with 1 aw , 11. Clause 2 of sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: (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 the Collectors award; (b) in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s. 12, Sub-sec. (2), or within six months from the data the Collectors award whichever period shall first expire. 12. (2), or within six months from the data the Collectors award whichever period shall first expire. 12. From the plain reading of Clause 2 of sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it appears that objection petition against the Award should have been filed within six weeks from the date of the Award in case the applicants were present or represented before the Collector. It is admitted position that the Collectors award was prepared on 1,4.1967. It has come on record that a joint objection petition was filed on 22.4.67. This goes to establish that just after 21 days of the preparation of award and within six weeks from the date of the award the applicants had already filed objection petition. Unfortunately, that petition was lost in the office but to calculate the limitation period the date of filing of the said joint petition which was lost in the office will the basis and not the date on which second application was filed by way of bringing the objection petition of the applicants on record which was a mere formality as the same was filed in place of the original petition which was lost in the office. Therefore, for calculating the period of limitation 21,3.70 can not be fixed the date from which calculation should be made rather 22.4.67 on which date the joint objection petition was filed will be the correct date for calculating the limitation and if it is calculated from that date the application is well within time. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding of the learned lower court in this regard is correct and according to law. Accordingly, I uphold the findings of the learned lower court that the application filed under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of the applicants is within time and not time barred. Accordingly, this point is also decided against the appellant. 13. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, as such, the same is hereby dismissed on contest but without costs. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, 4th, Motihari are hereby confirmed.