Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 100 (ORI)

Baha Majhi v. State of Orissa

2015-02-13

D.DASH

body2015
JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the claimant challenging an order passed by the referral Court in a reference under Section30 of the Act under Land Acquisition Act 1894. 2. Perusal of the order & the L.C.R. reveals that the reference was made by the Zone Officer, Special Land Acquisition, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Deuli in Land Acquisition Case No. 01 of 1996. Besides the present Appellant standing as a claimant; one Kapna Majhi & others of village Betanoti also raised their objections advancing their claim over the compensation of Rs. 95,900 assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer for payment under award No. 12 on account of acquisition of land measuring Ac. 4.07 decimals in mouza Betanoti. 3. The referral Court has dismissed the reference. On going through the order passed by the referral Court, it is seen that in view of non-supply of detail particulars such as the names & addresses of claimants other than the Appellant, the reference was not taken up for hearing on merit in the matter of competing claims for a decision as to who are entitled to get the said compensation & if so to what proportion. The Court has found his hands to have been tied down for not being able to secure the attendance of the claimants for non-supply of their detail address for service of notice. Thus the reference has been dismissed & most interestingly showing to have been so done on contest. All these, show as to how callously, the Land Acquisition Officer has dealt with the matter in a most cavalier fashion & as it appears being the Land Accusation Officer entrusted with onerous duty, he was not aware of the rudimentary procedures in making a reference under Section 30 of the Act even not filling the column No. 4 of Form No. 19 properly. But unfortunately, the referral Court has also not legged behind in following the same path that in such state of affair instead of returning the reference to be submitted again with better particulars, it has gone to record evidence of the Appellant & then lastly has dismissed it which in a way has been perceived by the claimant-Appellant that his claim has been negated & hence he has approached this Court in appeal further without being properly advised. The Learned Counsel for the claimant in the referral Court as it is seen has not pointed out the defects at the outset & has ' examined witnesses & the Learned Govt. Pleader instead of rectifying the defects has gone to cross-examine the witnesses, when the role of the State in such reference remains just to watch, see & assist the Court in properly answering the reference. The Court most interestingly discharged its duty in saying that it is not in a position to answer the reference for the reasons as indicated above. All these above, show that the provisions of law have been slaughtered at the altar of convenience; & thus there has been perpetration of grave injustice driving a land loser to approach higher Court & depriving the legitimate claimants of their lawful dues that too at the behest of State. The rights of the parties instead of being adjudicated as per law have been given a tragic burial. 4. In view of such shocking state of affairs, this Court by Order Dated 13.11.2014 directed for personal appearance of the Land Acquisition Officer & to file affidavit in this connection. Finally it has come to light that after the aforesaid dismissal, the Land Acquisition Officer vide letter No. 33 dated 08.03.2000 has made the reference again for being answered giving all required necessary details & it is further ascertained that Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 2000 was registered on that basis. Therefore, said record has been called for from the referral Court. On going through the said record, again the same cavalier fashion is shown to have been exhibited by the referral Court with much more vigor & the final result is the repeatation which is much more shocking & not only denial of justice but also perpetration of injustice with much more force & sufferance. This can be seen if the order sheet is gone through. The order-sheet reveals that on receipt of the reference, notices were sent & the matter remained on the board for service return till 06.07.2010, when order for issuance of fresh notice to the parties were passed, but that remained without being complied with till 11.05.2011. This can be seen if the order sheet is gone through. The order-sheet reveals that on receipt of the reference, notices were sent & the matter remained on the board for service return till 06.07.2010, when order for issuance of fresh notice to the parties were passed, but that remained without being complied with till 11.05.2011. But on 27.07.2011 having awaiting for the service return, despite of non-compliance as above, the Court directed the Learned Government Pleader to take fresh step & as no step was taken thereafter, finally on 19.01.2012, the case has been dismissed. This order is wholly contrary to & non-est in the eye of law. The referral Court was duty bound to cause service of notice on its own & to finally dispose of the reference considering the evidence & the legal provisions governing the rights of the claimants in adjudicating the entitlement of those claimants to the said assessed compensation & apportionment if any. 5. At this stage, it may be stated that after the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for acquisition of land measuring an area Ac. 4.07 decimals in mouza Betnoti, the following persons:- 1. Baha Majhi, S/o. Madha Majhi. 2. Kapra Majhi, W/o. Tiku Majhi. 3. Jaba Majhi, W/o. Jadu Majhi, 4. Hari Majili, 5. Bhaktu Majhi. 6. Narasingh Majhi, SI. No. 4, 5 & 6 are sons of Muchia Majhi. 7. Kandri Majhi, 8. Ludi Majhi, SI. 7 & 8 are the daughters of Dasa Majhi. 9. Churia Majhi, 10. Bhaktu Majhi, 11. Sankhi Majhi. 12. Duli Majhi, SI. 9 to 12 are the sons & daughters of Rama Majhi of Vill. Betnoti appeared as the persons interested in receiving the awarded amount. So the reference as required under Section 30 of the Act which being once made & remained unanswered, then was again made. 6. It is not understood at all how the referral Court could act in such a manner that the reference was dismissed again for the second time without ensuring the service of the notice upon the parties said to be interested in the compensation. It really shows the Presiding Officer's utter negligence in simply putting the signature on the doted line in the order without caring for a moment that what colossal injustice by such order would be perpetrated. It really shows the Presiding Officer's utter negligence in simply putting the signature on the doted line in the order without caring for a moment that what colossal injustice by such order would be perpetrated. Thus for no fault on the part of the persons interested, when the matter is before the Court for determination as to who would be getting the compensation for the acquisition of such huge extent of landed property, the Court again refused to answer the reference & dismissed it in away wholly not permissible in law & that too even without caring to ascertain the role of a referral Court in such matter. 7. It further shocks the conscience that in the such matter, the Land Acquisition Collector after making the reference has felt as if he has no further duty to see for early & proper disposal of the reference. When the second time reference has been made, it was also their responsibility to watch the proceeding & assist the Court which has not been done & the rights of the parties have in this way been thrown to the winds without being adjudicated, to their great sufferance. 8. In fact, looking at the above state of affairs, this Court feels the pain & expresses grave anguish over the matter being dealt in such a manner. The appeal having been preferred against the order of the first reference, now, it is further seen that the second reference after rectification of the defects sent to the Court has also rather been dealt in a much worse manner wholly contrary to law & thereby justice being made the casualty for taking a credit in disposal for that sake & not as per law. Therefore, in the fitness of things in order to do justice which has been the casualty simply for the reasons of callousness of Presiding Officers & their total non-application of mind, this Court is constrained to set aside the final order passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in L.A. Case No. 94 of 1998. The Order Dated 19.01.2012 passed in L.A. Case No. 14 of 2000 being non-est is not visible in the eye of law. It is directed that both the references be tagged together & after issuing notice to the parties & upon hearing them, the reference be answered in accordance with law. The Order Dated 19.01.2012 passed in L.A. Case No. 14 of 2000 being non-est is not visible in the eye of law. It is directed that both the references be tagged together & after issuing notice to the parties & upon hearing them, the reference be answered in accordance with law. It is further directed that the Officer-in-Charge of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Baripada will appear in the Court positively without fail on 30.03.2015 & supply all necessary information as regards the correct address of the parties after making prior enquiry at his level & also the fact as to if any of the parties interested have died in the meantime & if so, who are his/her legal representatives required to be noticed. Any dereliction to it would invite serious consequential action as per law. The referral Court is further strictly directed to dispose of the reference by the end of June, 2015 & report compliance to this Court. 9. The Registry is directed to forthwith communicate the order to the referral Court as well as the Collector, Mayurbhanj at Baripada & Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Baripada for immediate action as ordered & for future guidance. 10. The appeal stands allowed. No order as to cost.