Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1700 (PAT)

Beli Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-01

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Collector, Patna as well as other respondents for making payment of compensation of structure standing over the land of the petitioner, acquired by the respondents for construction of Transport Nagar in Village Jaliari, P.S. Agam Kuan, Patna. 3. Admitted facts of the case of the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner was acquired by notification and declaration dated 6.4.1985 under Sec. 17(4) i.e. under emergent provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The acquisition was for construction of Transport Nagar and the possession of the land was taken. This land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1979 through registered sale deed for construction of her residential house. The construction in fact has already began after sanction and approval of map from P.R.D.A. 4. Petitioners case is that before notification of acquisition she has already invested more than fifty thousand for construction. The respondents categorized the acquired land in two categories and fixed the rate on that basis. The rate for the petitioners land was fixed at lower rate. 5. In spite of the fact that structure and boundary wall were there and the petitioner had already invested huge amount for the construction of house. The matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Patna. The matter was decided by judgment and order dated 19.11.1992 where it was observed that there is no enhancement of compensation in respect of boundary wall etc. standing over the land acquired, if any. The awardee may take up the matter before the Collector for the same. In the light of the observation the matter was raised before the Collector, annexing all the relevant document/paper, but respondent Collector passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner even without supplying copy of the order passed in the miscellaneous case. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 where it has been stated that as per Land Acquisition Act, after the declaration of Award by Collector under the Act, if any awardee has any grievances relating to award then he can file a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 where it has been stated that as per Land Acquisition Act, after the declaration of Award by Collector under the Act, if any awardee has any grievances relating to award then he can file a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act. Under Sec. 19 of the Act the Land Acquisition Judge has given final judgment on the claim of the petitioner and has not given any relief with regard to compensation of construction. After the judgment of land Acquisition Judge, the Collector has no power to make any change in the decree given by civil court. It is also not possible to assess the cost of construction at this time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case Special Judge Land Acquisition Special Judge himself has given direction/liberty to the petitioner for raising enhancement for construction standing over the acquired land before the Collector even after disposal of the reference under Sec. 16 of the Act. The Collector in the present case has been authorised as per the direction of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, even though he has no jurisdiction under the Act. 7. There is no reply in the counter affidavit to this effect. 8. Accordingly this application is allowed. The Collector, Patna respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as per direction of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, order must be passed in the light of the observation of the Special Land Acquisition Judge within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.