Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1762 (JHR)

Most. Kusum Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-12-20

P.P.BHATT

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court- These group of First appeals have been preferred, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19.01.1989, passed by the learned court of Land Acquisition Judge-cum-Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 91 of 1980, whereby the Land Acquisition cases of the appellants/applicants has been rejected on the ground that all these cases are hit by the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. Perused the papers. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and more particularly the evidence which was marked as Exhibits 7 to 7/Z-20 i.e. forwarding letters indicating that the claimants have received the amount with protest. The learned senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that the court below has discussed about the documentary evidence on record in paragraph 10 of the judgment, wherein, the court below has also taken note of these exhibits. However, while recording the findings, the court below rejected the claim of the appellants/applicants mainly on the ground that the cases are hit by the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned senior counsel for the appellants/applicants further submitted that so far as the merit of the claim put forward by the claimants is concerned, the relevant documentary evidence is discussed in paragraph 8 of the judgment. But after discussing the merit of the claim, the court below mainly on the ground of proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rejected the claim of the appellants-applicants. By referring Section 18 and the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pointed out that the case of the appellants/applicants falls under the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the present appellants/applicants have specifically registered their protest while accepting the compensation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the discussions made in Paragraph 10 of the judgment itself, wherein, the documents marked as Exhibits 7 to 7/Z-20 i.e. the forwarding letters indicating that the claimants have received the amount with protest. 5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the discussions made in Paragraph 10 of the judgment itself, wherein, the documents marked as Exhibits 7 to 7/Z-20 i.e. the forwarding letters indicating that the claimants have received the amount with protest. 5. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State Government while supporting the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below submitted that the court below has taken view in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the present appellants/applicants have not registered their protest while accepting the compensation. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants/applicants have received compensation with protest as there is no endorsement to this effect on the documents and award. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government further submitted that the appellants are not entitled to get compensation as prayed for in view of the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, the court below has rightly and properly considered this aspect of the matter and rejected the claim of the appellants/applicants. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Ranchi, Land Acquisition Court, Ranchi and on perusal of the records and proceedings, it appears that Ext. 1/a is a sale deed dated 16.9.74 executed by one Sk. Charkuin favour of Jhallu Mahto. I find that through this sale deed 12 (twelve) decimals of land, which is Don-II land, have been sold of the village Chakla for Rs. 1260/-, which goes to show the value of Don-II land to Rs.10500/- per acre. Ext. 1/bis the sale deed dated 1.3.75, by which 26 (twenty six) decimals of Don-II land have been sold for Rs. 3000/- and this deed indicates the rate of Don-II land of Rs.11500/- per acre. Ext. 1/d is the sale deed dated 15.4.75, which shows the sale of 20 (twenty) decimals of Don-III land for Rs.2500/- and this deed gives the rate of Rs.12000/- per acre. Ext. 1/e is the sale deed dated 15.4.75 through which, sale of 19 (nineten) decimals of Don-III land have been sold and this deed gives the rate of Rs.10500/- per acre. I find that Ext. Ext. 1/e is the sale deed dated 15.4.75 through which, sale of 19 (nineten) decimals of Don-III land have been sold and this deed gives the rate of Rs.10500/- per acre. I find that Ext. 1 & 1/c have been marked twice, but both the exhibits are same. By this exhibit a sale of thirty six and one fourth decimals of Don-II land have been made on 14.4.75 for Rs.4000/- which gives Rs.11000/- per acre. 7. It further appears that the claimants have filed village survey map of village Chakla which Exts. 2 to 2/b and Ext. 2/c is Anchal map of Ormanjhi Anchal. These maps have been filed in order to show the location of lands. This map indicates the position of lands acquired in village Chakla, which are situated between three rivers. Ext. 2/c has been filed to show that the adjacent villages, in which lands have been acquired for the same project for which certified copy of judgment of L.A. 80/85 has been filed. Ext. 3 is the certified copy of award of L.A. case No. 175/75. Ext. 4 is the certified copy of reference of 32/65. All these two exhibits show that these are with regard to the same project. Ext. 5 is the certified copy of the judgment of L.A. Case No. 80/85 and others. This exhibit shows that the lands for 'Hydro Electricity Project & Getalsud Dam' were acquired of the adjacent villages to Chakla and for which, rate of lands were fixed for the different lands. In the said judgment the lands were acquired in the year 1965-66 and therefore, higher rate of land has been prayed to be fixed for the land as these lands have been acquired in the year, 1975 i.e. after ten years of the judgment under reference, marked as Ext. 5, Ext. 6 to 6/b are the certified copy of the khatian. Ext. 7 to 7/z-20 are the forwarding letters of land Acquisition Officer, which have been filed to show that the compensation has been received under protest. It also appears that the claimants besides documentary evidence have adduced oral evidence. The claimants have examined altogether twenty three witnesses, out of them, C.Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 9, 11 to 13, 15, 16, 19 to 21 and C.W. 23 are claimants and C.Ws. 3, 10, 14, 17, 18 and C.W. 22 are other independent witnesses. 8. It also appears that the claimants besides documentary evidence have adduced oral evidence. The claimants have examined altogether twenty three witnesses, out of them, C.Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 9, 11 to 13, 15, 16, 19 to 21 and C.W. 23 are claimants and C.Ws. 3, 10, 14, 17, 18 and C.W. 22 are other independent witnesses. 8. It further appears that the State has also filed rate report and copy of taking possession of the lands. The rate of report filed by the State has been marked as Ext. A and the copy of possession has been marked as Ext. B. 9. It further appears that the oral evidence given by these witnesses have been discussed by the learned court below in paragraph 7 of the judgment and while discussing and appreciating the above-mentioned documentary as well as oral evidence, the court below has recorded its findings about the merit of the claim put forward by the claimant in paragraph 8 of the judgment and accordingly, Rs. 11000/- for Don-I land, Rs.10000/- for Don-II land and Rs.9000/- for Don-III land, Rs.9000/- for Tand-I land, Rs.7000/- for Tand-II land and Rs.5000/- for Tand-III lands should have been fixed by the State. For 'parti' land Rs.3000/- should have been fixed by the State. The court below is of the opinion that the State has not properly fixed the rate of lands of village 'Chakla' . The claimants have shown the sale deeds and the amenities available in the village so, accordingly, the court below decided that the State should have fixed the rate of the land as discussed above. 10. It transpires that the appellants/applicants have produced certain forwarding letters, which have been marked as Exhibit 7 to 7/Z-20, these are the forwarding letters, indicating that the claimants have received the compensation with protest. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the learned court below has taken note of these documentary evidence in paragraph 10 of the judgment. However, the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been properly appreciated by the learned court below while considering the claim of the appellants/applicants. It appears that the learned court below has rejected the claim mainly on the ground that all the cases are hit by the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears that the learned court below has rejected the claim mainly on the ground that all the cases are hit by the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I found substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, which is based on the provision contained in Section 18 as well as proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides as under : - “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 the Collector's award; (b) in other cases 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 the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire. “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land or, if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted : Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18 : Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.” 11. In view of the aforesaid provision, the evidence on record is required to be appreciated by the learned court below as discussed hereinabove, as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the forwarding letters have been marked as Annexure-7 to 7/Z-20, which clearly shows that the present appellants/applicants have registered their protest by way of forwarding letters and therefore, this Court is of the view that the requirements of Proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been satisfied in the present case. It further appears that the court below has discussed about the merits of the case, discussed in paragraph 8 of the judgment. But mainly on the ground of not satisfying the requirement of proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the claim put forward by the present appellants/claimants have been rejected. 12. It further appears that the court below has discussed about the merits of the case, discussed in paragraph 8 of the judgment. But mainly on the ground of not satisfying the requirement of proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the claim put forward by the present appellants/claimants have been rejected. 12. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the requirement of the proviso of Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is satisfied in the instant case and therefore, the claim put forward by the present appellants/applicants, which has been appreciated in paragraph 8 of the judgment is required to be allowed in the instant case. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 19.01.1989, passed by the learned court of Land Acquisition Judge-cum-Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 91 of 1980 is partly set aside to the above effect. These group of First appeals (F.A. No. 201 of 1989 with F.A. No. 204 of 1989 with F.A. No. 205 of 1989 with F.A. No. 206 of 1989 with F.A. No. 207 of 1989 with F.A. No. 208 of 1989 with F.A. No. 209 of 1989 with F.A. No. 211 of 1989 with F.A. No. 213 of 1989 with F.A. No. 214 of 1989 with F.A. No. 215 of 1989) are partly allowed accordingly. Applications partly allowed.