Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1176 (PAT)

Kailash Prasad Ram v. State of Bihar

2018-07-31

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and State Bank of India. Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 5540 of 2018 2. The Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition by adding further prayers. Basically, the same relate to the notice issued to the petitioner by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria relating to acquisition proceeding. 3. As the writ petition relates to payment of retiral dues, the same having no nexus or connection with any Land Acquisition Proceeding, in the opinion of the Court, the Interlocutory Application is misconceived. 4. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application No. 5540 of 2018 stands dismissed. 5. However, for the cause of action, the petitioner is at liberty to move in a fresh proceeding. Re.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18270 of 2016 6. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief’s: "i. For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to unseal the State Bank Saving Account No. 11712617184 of the petitioner so that petitioner can make transaction pension from the said account as petitioner's pension is being credited in the said account. The Bank account of the petitioner is freezed on the instruction of the District authority. ii. For the other relief’s for which petitioner is found entitle in the facts and circumstances of the case." 7. Some land of the petitioner was acquired for making National Highway on Indo-Nepal Border Area. The compensation amount of Rs. 33,11,352/- was also paid to the petitioner. After that complaint came that excess payment has been made to the petitioner as the land was agricultural and not residential. Accordingly, report was called by the Collector, Araria and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria submitted a report finding the complaint to be correct and that the land was agricultural. Based on the same, the Collector, Araria set up a six men enquiry committee which again found the land to be agricultural. In light of the aforesaid, an amount of Rs. 29,45,052/- was found to have been paid in excess of the actual value of the land of the petitioner which was acquired. He was given notice to deposit the same. In light of the aforesaid, an amount of Rs. 29,45,052/- was found to have been paid in excess of the actual value of the land of the petitioner which was acquired. He was given notice to deposit the same. Since the amount of compensation was paid into the account of the petitioner in which he also received pension, the authorities directed the concerned Branch of the State Bank of India to freezed the account. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has moved the Court in the present writ application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities cannot withhold the pension as the same can be done only under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, after following the due procedure which has not been done. It was further submitted that even such proceeding now is barred as the petitioner has superannuated about 25 years back. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities have no power to revise the value of the compensation as the same can be done only by reference before the Sub Judge. It was submitted that the petitioner could not reply in time to the notice dated 28.07.2017, as he was ill and at Ranchi and, thus, when he came back, he has given his show cause on 23.10.2017, which has not been considered. Learned counsel has also shown to the Court the order dated 23.05.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 8011 of 2018 in the case of Bhaskar Anand vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., where status quo was directed to be maintained and the next date in the case was fixed for 22.06.2018, and the authorities were directed to file counter affidavit. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are totally misconceived. It was submitted that though no such objection has been either mentioned or raised in the pleadings filed on behalf of the petitioner but coming to the objection that the matter had to be referred to the Sub-Judge, the same is misplaced. It was submitted that in the present case, quantum of compensation is not disputed inasmuch as, the valuation of the land per se has not been revised by the Collector, and rather the basic nature of the land has been found to be different than that for which compensation has been paid. It was submitted that in the present case, quantum of compensation is not disputed inasmuch as, the valuation of the land per se has not been revised by the Collector, and rather the basic nature of the land has been found to be different than that for which compensation has been paid. It was submitted that the compensation had been paid taking the nature of the land to be residential which has a higher valuation, though the land was actually agricultural and, thus, the same was required to be acquired at a lesser rate. It was submitted that first the District Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter a six member committee had gone in detail with regard to such factual aspect and had reported that the land was agricultural, and thus, the power of the Sub Judge is restricted to the quantum of the compensation, but not with regard to deciding the nature of the land, for which purpose, it is the revenue authorities which have the final word and once by two reports, it has been established that the land acquired was agricultural, only recalibration of the amount has been done and the excess amount which was given to the petitioner has been asked to be refunded. It was further submitted that there has been no stoppage of any pension payable to the petitioner, for the direction to the authorities of the State Bank of India is to freeze the account in which the compensation amount was paid and also for recovery of the amount which was recoverable from the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities have only corrected the basis of their earlier calculation in view of the correct nature of the land acquired and, thus, the same has nothing to do with the enhancement or reduction in the award and the matter was not required to be referred to the Sub Judge. 10. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India submitted that they have only acted in terms of the instructions issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria and only the account in which the compensation was paid and from which the amount of Rs. 29,45,052/- is to be recovered, there is restriction of withdrawal by the petitioner. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India submitted that they have only acted in terms of the instructions issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria and only the account in which the compensation was paid and from which the amount of Rs. 29,45,052/- is to be recovered, there is restriction of withdrawal by the petitioner. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find any occasion to interfere in the matter. The contention of learned counsel for the State that the relief prayed for is misconceived has substance. It is incidental that in the account in which the compensation paid to the petitioner for acquisition of his land was made is also the pension account of the petitioner. However, the authorities have directed that because an amount of over Rs. 29 lakhs is refundable/recoverable on account of excess payment, the transaction by the petitioner be stopped till such recovery. Thus, in the account where the excess money has been deposited being asked not to be allowed to be operated by the petitioner for withdrawing money till the time excess money is not recovered, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No issue with regard to any stoppage of pension in the present facts and circumstance of the matter arises. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter had to be referred to the Sub Judge is also not tenable for the reason that matters to the Sub Judge are referred where there is a dispute with regard to the quantum based on the rate of the land acquired. The Sub Judge does not have the jurisdiction to decide the nature of the land as it is decided by the Revenue authorities of the State and it is their exclusive jurisdiction, as a matter of policy, to decide areas which can be classified as agricultural or residential or urban or commercial. This exercise having been done by the Executive/Revenue authorities, that too, in terms of an enquiry by the District Land Acquisition Officer followed by an enquiry by a six member committee, was rightly within the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities. Thus, based on the recategorization of the land, if the amount of compensation has to be redone/reworked, the exercise cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction. Thus, based on the recategorization of the land, if the amount of compensation has to be redone/reworked, the exercise cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction. It can also not be held to be against any legal or statutory provisions. 12. Coming to the question of the authorities not considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 23.10.2017, suffice to say that the same is not relevant, for the reason, that by notice dated 28.07.2017, time was given till 2nd August, 2017 to reply and thereafter waiting for more than one month, on 4th September, 2017, the concerned State Bank of India was communicated to stop withdrawal of money from the account by the petitioner. The authorities are not supposed to know as to whether the petitioner is under any difficulty and they having waited for more than one month after the date fixed for showing cause, cannot be faulted on this ground. Moreover, once the Court has found that there is no illegality in the demand on the petitioner based on proper classification of his land acquired, the excess amount which comes from public coffer is required to be returned by the petitioner to the public exchequer. 13. Coming to the interim order dated 23.05.2018 in the case of Bhaskar Anand, the Court can only observe that the said order is only to maintain status quo, meaning thereby that the embargo or restriction against withdrawal by the said writ petitioner has not been interfered with. Morevoer, once the Court has finally heard the matter, after completion of pleadings, the said interim order, even if it is in the background of similar facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for passing any interim order. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.