Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1387 (PAT)

Shivendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar

2016-10-26

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2016
ORDER : 1. In 1976, inter alia, 5.49 acres of land situated in Plot Nos. 206, 207 and 208, in Mauza Rahimpur English, at that time in the district of Munger, now in the district of Khagaria, was occupied by the State Government to rehabilitate flood victims. Over the years, there were four successive land acquisition proceedings for formalizing this acquisition, but all were allowed to lapse because of failure of the government to provide the awarded money and like causes. 2. The petitioner, being fed up, having been deprived of the land for over 40 years and there being no possibility of return of it, successive proceeding for acquisition and payment of compensation having lapse, came to this Court in CWJC No. 15819/2013. Noticing the aforesaid facts, the said writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 07.02.2014, with subsequent minor corrections vide order dated 12.03.2014, passed in MJC No. 742/2014. The direction to the Collector, Khagaria was to immediately calculate the compensation payable under the two heads. First, for temporary acquisition for the period 1976 to the date when permanent acquisition is notified in present time. The second would be the compensation for permanent acquisition in present time. When this payment was not made for over a year these contempt proceedings were initiated. On coming to know of contempt application, State, in order to save itself, filed a belated Letters Patent Appeal, which was ultimately dismissed. In these proceedings, this Court issued peremptory orders for payment. It directed that, if payments are not made by 26th of October, 2016, the Collector, Khagaria, would be personally present to answer rule of contempt. 3. Today, when the matter is called out, the Collector, Khagaria is present in person. A supplementary show cause has been filed. In the show cause, it is stated that, on 24.10.2016 (i.e. two days back), an award was prepared in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act), and the petitioner was noticed, but he did not turned up. It is also stated that one Dhirendra Narayan Singh, claiming to be the nephew of petitioner, filed a petition before the Collector, Khagaria on 25.10.2016, claiming that he was entitled to half share of the compensation as the land originally stood in the name of his grandfather, meaning thereby, father of the petitioner. It is also stated that one Dhirendra Narayan Singh, claiming to be the nephew of petitioner, filed a petition before the Collector, Khagaria on 25.10.2016, claiming that he was entitled to half share of the compensation as the land originally stood in the name of his grandfather, meaning thereby, father of the petitioner. His grandfather namely, Late Satyadeo Narayan Singh had two sons, namely, Devendra Narayan Singh and Shivendra Narayan Singh. Shivendra Narayan Singh is the petitioner, whereas Dhirendra Narayan Singh is the only son of Late Devendra Narayan Singh. Thus, he is entitled to 50% of the compensation. 4. Today, Sri Uday Bhanu Rai, has appeared in the Court on behalf of Dhirendra Narayan Singh and undertakes to file Vakalatnama. He states that petitioner is fraudulently claming the entire amount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the pleadings wherein he has clearly stated that the land was allotted to the share of his father which is now being acquired. He had not stated that it was he alone who is entitled to the entire compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the claim on behalf of the Dhirendra Narayan Singh, in fact, is not correct. He has a predeceased brother and a surviving sister. Thus, in fact, his share would be 1/6th. 6. Be that as it may, the right of petitioner to receive compensation cannot be denied, nor the right to receive compensation by the Dhirendra Narayan Singh can be denied. The parties are agreed that as Late Devendra Narayan Singh and petitioner Shivendra Narayan Singh also have a sister namely, Kusum Devi, wife of late Tej Pratap Singh. The compensation would be divided 1/3rd in each branch, and, thereafter for the branch of Devendra Narayan Singh. It would further be sub-divided into three i.e. one for Dhirendra Narayan Singh, the other for his late brother, and third for his sister. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner would receive 1/3rd share of the total award, and the said Dhirendra Narayan Singh not more than 1/9th share. The Collector would be well-advised to correct these particulars and ensure proportionate payments, as deducted from the award aforesaid, directly to all the beneficiaries, as indicated above. 7. Now, coming to the substantive part of the writ order. The first part deals with the compensation for temporary occupation. The Collector would be well-advised to correct these particulars and ensure proportionate payments, as deducted from the award aforesaid, directly to all the beneficiaries, as indicated above. 7. Now, coming to the substantive part of the writ order. The first part deals with the compensation for temporary occupation. Upon instruction learned Additional Advocate General-VI, Sri P.N. Shahi, states that this amount has been calculated to about Rs. 7 Lacs, which is actually now to be paid by Disaster Management Department. This is the amount of ground rent. I am afraid that there is basic distinction between ground rent which a raiyat pays to the government and compensation for deprivation of land. The two are different. Ground rent cannot be the compensation. If that be so, then for the 40 years user, if the State has to pay only Rs. 7 Lacs, why would State ever acquire any property? It would temporarily use it for 100 years for payment of a paltry amount. Thus, depriving of the award of compensation itself. That is not what is contemplated in Section 36 of the old Act which is similar to Section 82 of the New Act. This part of the award is for damages that the State has to pay for depriving a land holder of use of the land. In this case, the period is 40 years. The land area is above 5 acres. The amount can never be paltry figure of about Rs. 7 Lacs. The Collector, Khagaria, would be well advised to recalculate the said amount. 8. Now, we may consider the compensation as shown in the award, which has been annexed on the face of it. It does not appear to be corrected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, firstly, it is based on the valuation of the year 2011-12. There is nothing on record to show this, but it may be so. Collector, Khagaria would have to look into this aspect of the matter. It has to be the market value on the day when the notification is issued and the notification as per the award itself is dated 22.10.2016. Thus, the valuation has to be taken as of that date. It is agricultural land as the award itself shows. Thus, the policy of the State Government of enhanced compensation in case of acquisition of agricultural land would equally apply. 10. Thus, the valuation has to be taken as of that date. It is agricultural land as the award itself shows. Thus, the policy of the State Government of enhanced compensation in case of acquisition of agricultural land would equally apply. 10. The Collector, Khagaria would have to disclose these figures and calculations after re-verifying the same. If, upon re-verification, the amount of compensation is enhanced by any reason that will not be an excuse not to pay, what has admitted for the present to the parties concerned immediately awaiting further funds which payment must also be made before the next date. 11. List this matter on 7th December, 2016 at the top of the list. 12. In case, the learned Collector, Khagaria has complied the direction, as given by this Court, he would not be required to appear again before this Court.