Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1195 (PAT)

Jagdish Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-24

BARIN GHOSH, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment Barin Ghosh and Rekha Kumari JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the District Gadget on 6th November, 1979. The said Notification purported to disclose an intention to acquire the lands of the appellants for Gandak Project. The self same notification also disclosed an intention of acquiring lands belonging to other persons situate in proximity of the land of the appellants. Some of the lands so intended to be acquired were the river-bed of the river Gandak. In relation thereto the Government issued a direction that compensation for such land be assessed at Rs. 100/- per acre. 3. While the Collector took upon himself the obligation to prepare the award pertaining to the lands being the subject matter of the said Notification, he awarded Rs. 100/- per acre in respect of some lands which were claimed to be river-bed, a sum of Rs. 7173/- per acre in respect of some lands which were by the side of the river and Rs. 2391/- per acre in respect of the lands which were noted as parti lands. The lands belonging to the appellants were considered as the lands situate on the river-bed of the river and accordingly compensation in relation thereto was fixed at Rs. 100/- per acre. At the instance of the appellants, the matter went before the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Chapra, who recorded evidence and thereupon refused to interfere. Thereafter, at the instance of the appellants the matter travelled to this Court by way of First Appeal when a learned Single Judge also refused to interfere and hence the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. From the evidence brought on record by or at the instance of the appellants it would be evidenced that if the lands of the appellants were situate by the side of the river then the value of such lands would have been Rs. 7173/-per acre. i.e. the rate at which compensation for such land had been awarded by the Collector himself. 5. Therefore, the one and the only issue was whether the lands of the appellants were lands situate on the river bed or not. 6. 7173/-per acre. i.e. the rate at which compensation for such land had been awarded by the Collector himself. 5. Therefore, the one and the only issue was whether the lands of the appellants were lands situate on the river bed or not. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence as was tendered by the appellants before the Special Land Acquisition Judge wherefrom we have not been able to gather a single piece of material on which a prudent person can even assume that a bona fide dispute as to the situation of the land had been raised. No reliance was placed on the revenue records. If the appellants had paid revenue in respect of the lands in question, the receipts suggesting such payments had not been brought on record before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge. No attempt was made to tender a certified copy of Register II to show that the revenue had been fixed in respect of lands in question upon considering the nature of the land. At the same time no effort was made to bring on record the revisional survey records suggesting the situation of the land. On the other hand the specific evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer was that while he measured the lands in question, he found the same as submerged in the river water. 7. In such situation there was no scope of interference at all. 8. It was well within the competence of the appellants to contend that the rate of Rs. 100/- fixed by the State has no legal or factual nexus. This was not contended by the appellants at any stage. It was not suggested that having regard to the quantum of revenue paid by the appellants in respect of the lands in question, it was unethical to fix the compensation for the lands in question at Rs. 100 per acre. 9. It was contended that notice under Section 8 of the Act was not served upon the appellants. The fact remains that a villager accepted such notice on behalf of the appellants. 10. Be that as it may, while dealing with the matter, the Courts did not proceed on the basis whether the appellants by reason of failing to object at the Section 9 stage are precluded from claiming that they had claimed before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge. 11. 10. Be that as it may, while dealing with the matter, the Courts did not proceed on the basis whether the appellants by reason of failing to object at the Section 9 stage are precluded from claiming that they had claimed before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge. 11. In the circumstances there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.