Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 895 (JHR)

Postu Devi (wife) v. Som Nath Das

2024-10-17

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1991. 3. The brief fact of the case is that a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad for deciding the right, title and interest of the applicant for the purpose of getting compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired in connection with the reference. The Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad registered the case as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989. The respondents of this second appeal were the opposite parties of the said Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989. The opposite parties did not file any written objection against the claim made by the applicants, who are the appellants of this second appeal but they have adduced evidence even though there was no pleading on their part. 4. The Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the reference on contest instead of answering the reference by deciding the right, title and interest of the applicants to get compensation; without giving any opportunity to the parties to file their respective statements of claim and the objection thereto from the rival party. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1991 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 the applicant-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 56 of 1991 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Dhanbad by its judgment dated 13.03.2003 passed in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1991. 6. The learned first appellate court did not find any error in the judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 and dismissed the appeal. 7. At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following sole substantial question of law was framed vide order dated 09.07.2004 by the Predecessor Judge in the roster :- “Whether the courts below could have decided the right, title and interest and compensation awarded in favour of the respondents in absence of any positive claim made by them by filing their objection/claim before the Land Acquisition Judge?” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondents of this second appeal who were the opposite parties of the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 did not file any objection/claim so firstly the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad ought not have allowed them to adduce any evidence in the absence of any pleading and secondly the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad ought not have taken into consideration the evidence in the record put forth by the opposite parties, in the absence of any objection/claim made before the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad by the opposite parties, in the absence of positive claim made by them. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents had no occasion to file any objection/claim before the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding any dispute as to the person to whom the compensation is payable is really in the nature of an inter-pleader suit. The proceeding is a combination of as many suits as there are claims and each claimant is both plaintiff and defendant. The proper procedure in such cases for the Land Acquisition Judge is to call upon each claimant to file statement of his claim and this statement would be his plaint. In answer to the claim thus made, the defendants mainly the contesting claimant should be given opportunity of filing their objection and this would be their written statement then issues would be settled and trial be proceeded within the ordinary manner. 11. In answer to the claim thus made, the defendants mainly the contesting claimant should be given opportunity of filing their objection and this would be their written statement then issues would be settled and trial be proceeded within the ordinary manner. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad has not followed the procedure of giving opportunity to parties to submit their statement of claims and even though the opposite parties to the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 neither filed any statement of claim nor filed any objection to the application filed by the applicants which was referred under Section 30 to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad certainly, the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad erred in dismissing the reference instead of answering the same as to whether the appellant-applicant had any right, title and interest to get the compensation awarded. So the sole substantial question law is answered in the affirmative and the learned first appellate court has also committed a perversity by not finding out this fault of the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad. 12. Accordingly, both the judgment and decree being the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1991 dated 13.03.2003 and judgment and decree dated 14.08.1991 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 being not sustainable in law are set aside. 13. 12. Accordingly, both the judgment and decree being the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1991 dated 13.03.2003 and judgment and decree dated 14.08.1991 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 being not sustainable in law are set aside. 13. The Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 44 of 1989 is remitted to the court of Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad or its successor court for giving opportunity to both the applicants and the opposite parties thereof, to file their statement of claims and if statement of claims is filed by either of the parties or both the parties then the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad must give opportunity to the other party to file their written statement in respect of the statement of claim of the rival party and the respective parties filing statement of claim to be treated as plaint in respect of the statement of claim filed by them and the parties filing written statement be treated as defendant in respect of such statement of claim and if statement of claim and the objection are filed then Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad is directed to settle issues and proceed with the trial. 14. Keeping in view that the matter is an old one and the witnesses might not be available anymore so the testimony of the witnesses so far as it not beyond the pleadings of the parties if any filed by them by way of statement of claim or objection may be permitted to be treated as evidence in the record but if the witnesses are available and if any of the parties intend to further examine or cross-examine them, the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad is directed to allow such prayer and after considering the evidence in the record to pass an award in answer to the reference made to it in accordance with law. 15. This second appeal is disposed of accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.