Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 830 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2018-04-11

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. Since the issues involved in all three writ petitions are common, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to pay the balance amount of compensation Rs.16,26,882/- along with statutory interest in terms of Award No.58 prepared in his favour for an amount of Rs.25,28,798/- in lieu of acquisition of the land for the purpose of widening of NH-02. 3. In W.P.(C) No.1138 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to pay the balance amount of compensation Rs.20,79,154/- along with statutory interest in terms of Award No.57 prepared in his favour for an amount of Rs.31,97,116/- in lieu of acquisition of the land for the purpose of widening of NH-02. 4. In W.P.(C) No.1147 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to pay the balance amount of compensation Rs.9,78,192/- along with statutory interest in terms of Award No.63 prepared in his favour for an amount of Rs.28,20,854/- in lieu of acquisition of the land for the purpose of widening of NH-02. 5. The factual background of the case is that the land including building of the petitioners have been acquired under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act, 2013). The awards were prepared in favour of the petitioners and notices were issued to them under section 37(2) of the Act, 2013, directing to them to appear and produce required documents. According to the petitioners, they produced all the required documents, however, they have only been paid an amount of Rs.8,91,916/-, Rs.11,17,962/- and Rs.8,42,662/-, respectively, as compensation. Thereafter the petitioners made representations to the respondent authorities for payment of the entire compensation amount, however, nothing has been done. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in view of section 37(1) of the Act, 2013, the awards prepared in favour of the petitioners are final and conclusive as between the Collector and the petitioners with respect to market value of the land and assets attached thereto and solatium so determined which cannot be altered, amended or modified by either of the parties. It is further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to disburse the payment of rest amount of compensation forthwith along with statutory interest. It is also submitted that the respondents, who themselves have unilaterally acquired the land and building of the petitioners and prepared the awards, cannot withhold the part of the awarded amount without any rhyme or reason. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2016, however, despite the order of this Court, no counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) Nos.1138 of 2016 and 1147 of 2016. Since all the three writ petitions arise out of same acquisition proceeding, the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.1059 of 2016 has been considered. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while relying upon the counter affidavit submits that earlier the NHAI, Dhanbad, after inspection, prepared a valuation sheet with respect to the structure standing over the acquired land. According to the said valuation sheet, NHAI, Dhanbad assessed Rs.11,12,399/- (concerning W.P. (C) No.1138 of 2016), as the value of the structure standing over the said acquired land. On the basis of the said valuation report dated 27.11.2013, the awards were prepared. However, before preparation of the said awards a revised survey was made by the NHAI, Dhanbad and thereafter revised valuation sheet was prepared on 03.10.2015. It is further submitted that unfortunately the said revised assessment could not be sent to the Land Acquisition Department, as a result of which the awards could not be revised. It is also submitted that the notice was actually sent on the basis of unrevised awards. It is further submitted that as per the revised assessment, vouchers were prepared for payment of compensation after making usual deduction @ 20% out of the net assessment and the Income Tax Deduction @ 10% and the said amount was paid to the petitioners and, thus, nothing is due towards the petitioners. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners’ contention is that they have been paid lesser amount than the awarded compensation. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners’ contention is that they have been paid lesser amount than the awarded compensation. However, the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the awards were prepared on the basis of the earlier valuation report and the compensation amount has been paid in terms with the revised assessment. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners is that once the award has been prepared, the same is conclusive and final. Thus, in view of Section 37 of the Act, 2013, no alteration in the awarded amount is permissible. Section 37 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:- “37. Award to Collector when to be final - (1) The Awards shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall, except as hereinafter provided to be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and market value of the land and the assets attached thereto, solatium so determined and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his awards to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or through their representative when the awards are made. (3) The Collector shall keep open to the public and display a summary of the entire proceedings undertaken in a case of acquisition of land including the amount of compensation awarded to each individual along with details of the land finally acquired under this Act on the website created for his purpose.” 10. The provision relating to power of the collector for correction of award has been laid down under section 33 of the Act, 2013, however, the same is permissible only for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes that too after giving an opportunity of hearing to the person prejudicially affected by the said action. Section 33 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:- “33. Section 33 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:- “33. Correction awards by Collector -(1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority; Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award so corrected to all the persons interested. (3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered, as prescribed by the appropriate Government.” 11. In the present case the respondents have not stated before this court that they have made correction of the award after giving due notice and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the instant cases, the full awarded amount has not been paid to the petitioners on the ground of wrong assessment earlier made by the officials, which is not permissible under the Act, 2013. The respondents have, thus, failed to furnish any legal justification for detaining part of the awarded compensation payable to the petitioners. 12. In view of the discussions made herein above, these writ petitions are disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent no.2 by filing fresh representations in this regard along with supporting documents. The respondent no.2 shall take appropriate steps for payment of balance amount of the awarded compensation to the petitioners, if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representations. 13. I.A. No.1942 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.1147 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.