Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1905 (PAT)

Ramesh Prasad Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2007-12-14

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. A proceeding for acquisition of about 2.59 acres of land was initiated in respect of lands at village-Harbanshpur in the district of Patna for the purpose of establish- ment of a Super Thermal Power Plant of National Thermal Power Corporation in the Barh Sub-Division of Patna. Notifications were issued in this regard under the Land Acquisition Act calling for objections. Various objections were decided and on 11.3.2005, notice for payment of 80% of the value as determined in terms of Sec. 12 of the Act was issued in favour of the petitioner. On 21.3.2005, possession of land was taken over and handed over to National Thermal Power Corporation. Various objections were again filed but ultimately a cheque dated 3.5.2005, as aforesaid, was issued in favour of the petitioner but immediately on petitioner depositing the same, the cheque was returned uncashed with advice that payment had been stopped. This is what brought the petitioner to this Court. During pendency of the writ application, it has been brought on record that pursuant to some objections again being raised, the Collector under the Act had ordered for stopping payment of the cheque and, thereafter, noticing the disputes with regard to claim and apportionment of compensation, referred the matter to Civil Court in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act which order is also challenged. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that once cheque was issued in his favour, the Collector, under the Act, had no jurisdiction to order its payment to be stopped and/or to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court in terms of Sec. 30. Private respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are basically the objectors. Some of whom objected prior to preparation of the award and some objected there- after. 2. State and the private respondents have taken stand that there being serious dispute raised with regard to apportionment of compensation, it was only fit and proper for the Collector to stop payment and refer the matter to the Civil Court. 3. Detailed arguments were made to show how the five private respondents are related to the petitioner and how they have little or no concern with the lands in question. 3. Detailed arguments were made to show how the five private respondents are related to the petitioner and how they have little or no concern with the lands in question. Endeavour has also been made to establish, with reference to the order-sheet of the acquisition proceedings, that some of the private respondents (objectors) had objected but their objections had been rejected but once again some others, who were closely related, objected and in this manner, the due payment to the petitioner was mala fide got stopped. 4. Under the scheme of the Act, it would be seen that objections can be taken at different stages. It could be a pre-award objection. It could be a post-award objection or it could be an objection as to the apportionment of compensation. In my view, the position has been clearly brought to forefront by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant V/s. State of Bihar since, AIR 1966 SC 237 wherein the Apex Court has noticed this position of objection being available at different stages. In my view, where disputes are raised before the Collector under the Act with regard to apportionment which the Collector thinks he cannot decide or it involves disputed questions of title then in my view, the Collector is bound to refer the matter of apportionment of award/compensation to competent Civil Court! Once the matter is referred to competent Civil Court then all parties are free to establish their rights and the competent Civil Court is in a position to decide those questions. But a word of caution here is necessary. If objections raised are frivolous, baseless and prima facie do not satisfy the Collector then he cannot shirk his responsibility in the matter and shift the burden to the Civil Court by making a reference either in terms of Sec. 18 or Section 30 of the Act. 5. In the present case, it would be seen that some of the objections that were received were received after payment orders were made. Stage of Section 18 reference had crossed as held by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above. There is no limitation for an action to be taken in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act. In the present case, it would be seen that some of the objections that were received were received after payment orders were made. Stage of Section 18 reference had crossed as held by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above. There is no limitation for an action to be taken in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act. Therefore, where the Collector found that there were serious disputes, he had the jurisdiction to refer the matter in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act. 6. In my view, therefore, a reference having been made in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act though immediately after ordering payments, the withholding of payment cannot be questioned nor the reference in terms of Sec. 30 be questioned, Undisputedly some of the private respondents did not object at the very beginning but came up only after payment order was made. That is permissible as there is no limitation on the action to be taken in terms of Sec. 30. Therefore, in my view, the writ application now, that reference under Sec. 30 has been made, does not survive. 7. Before parting, I may point out that even if the claims of the private respondents are accepted then the petitioner would still be entitled undisputedly to a substantial amount nearing about 50%. This aspect of the matter should have been considered by the Collector before making the reference because by this process of making reference even undisputed share of the petitioner in the compensation has been withheld. This, to my mind, calls for an interference by this Court. I would direct the parties, that is the petitioner and the private respondents, to appear before the Collector and the Collector would decide at least the undisputed share of the petitioner. While doing so, the Collector would also keep in mind that if any of the respondents claim had been considered and rejected earlier to that extent, that respondent would not be allowed to lay a claim and the same would also apply to case where some of the respondents chose in the interregnum to move Civil Court but failed to establish their right. On determining these facts the Collector, under the Act, would determine the undisputed share of the petitioner and ensure payment to him immediately. On determining these facts the Collector, under the Act, would determine the undisputed share of the petitioner and ensure payment to him immediately. For the balance he would state the case and refer it to Civil Court as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. 8. Thus, in the facts as noted above, the matter needs a reconsideration by the Collector under the Act and the order referring the apportionment of compensation to Civil Court in terms of Sec. 30 in L.A. Case No. 1 of 2003-2004 said to be pending before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna being order dated 13.9.2005 and subsequent order dated 14.6.2006 in the said proceedings are quashed and the matter is remitted to be decided in accordance with the judgment of this Court aforesaid and in accordance with law. 9. The writ application, thus, stands allowed.