Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1254 (PAT)

Tauqueer Akram v. State of Bihar

2017-09-18

JYOTI SARAN

body2017
Jyoti Saran, J. – Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Kumar Goutam, the Advocate on record and Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned Additional Advocate General No.12 for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the respondent Presiding Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Patna appointed under section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) whereby the respondent ‘Authority’ in purported exercise of powers vested in him under section 60 read with Order 21 Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure has ordered for attachment of salary of the petitioner until the compensation amount is deposited by the State in terms of the award so pronounced by the respondent ‘Authority which order has subsequently been modified on 21.10.2016 on an application so filed on behalf of the State in reference to the provisions underlying section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, according to the respondent ‘Authority’, does not envisage the attachment of entire salary rather a portion thereof. 3. It is on the direction of this Court that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents and in which it is stated that against the award so passed by the respondent ‘Authority’ that an appeal has been preferred before this Court and which is pending consideration on the quantum of compensation. 4. The crux of the matter is whether for execution of an award payable by the State can the respondent ‘Authority’ attach the salary of an official of the State especially where it is not his personal liability to deposit the compensation amount rather the onus is on the State itself. 5. Prima-facie the order of the respondent ‘Authority to attach the salary of the petitioner does not find support from the provisions underlying either section 60 or Order 21 rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure so relied upon by him. The liability to pay compensation as per the award lies on the State and is certainly not the individual personal liability of the petitioner even though he happens to be an integral part of the acquisition proceedings in question. 6. The liability to pay compensation as per the award lies on the State and is certainly not the individual personal liability of the petitioner even though he happens to be an integral part of the acquisition proceedings in question. 6. As I have said, it is on a complete misconception in appreciation of section 60 read along side Order 21 rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the order(s) of attachment put to challenge, has been passed which is grossly illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 7. In result, the order dated 1.8.2016 as it stands modified vide order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the respondent ‘Authority’ in so far as it proceeds to attach the salary of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 8. The order of the respondent ‘Authority’ passed on 1.8.2016 as modified vide order dated 21.10.2016 stands modified to that extent. As a consequence the State respondents would be advised to take appropriate steps for release of the salary of the petitioner and for its payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.