KAMALDEO NARAYAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

learned Counsel has also drawn this Court’s attention to Annexure 4 and 5 of the writ application. Annexure-4 is dated 14.08.2006 and is signed by the Circle Officer, Circle Inspector and Halka Karamchari of Parbatta Circle which indicates the nature of the land against the plots mentioned therein. The petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner’s land appertaining to plot nos. 658 to 687 described as basgit land situated in mouza Temthakarari the said authorities mentioned above. This classification is the basis on which documents are registered in the State of Bihar with respect to sale or any other matter. Similarly, Annexure-5 is the value of the lands situated in different mouzas. Again, the lands appertaining to Temthakarari have been shown to be at the value of Rs. 9500/- per decimal. This chart is also utilized by the State Government for the purposes of fixing the registration fee for transfer of lands in the areas 5 concerned. I, therefore, leave it open to the Collector to either refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, Khagaria or to accept Annexure 4 and 5 after verifying the same from his own office where the records should be available or in the alternative to send for the records from the Office of the Registrar to cut short the matter considering the fact that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated as far back as in the year 2006 and the petitioner is suffering for the past several years on account of non payment of his dues and had to move this Court on several occasions in order to get his right adjudicated by this Court. Learned Counsel also submits that after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, he has not filed any objection with a respect to the acquisition of his land rather his only objection has been for making payment of the compensation amount. Referring to Annexure B, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a decision by the State Government vide memo no. 395 dated 19.02.2007 wherein it has been stated in Clause

1.2 that the State Government has decided that it would give 60 per cent solatium to such person who were willing for the acquisition proceedings of their lands which has been reiterated by memo no. 1455 dated 21.06.2007. In 6 the memo dated 21.06.2007, it has been stated that an affidavit ought to have filed by the land holder after the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act stating that they are willing to hand over their lands. In this context, this Court finds that the steps were taken by the State Government to take over of possession of the lands, some time in the year 1974-78. The petitioner did not make a protest. Finally, the petitioner came to this Court notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on

16.10.2006 for payment of compensation and during the pendency of the contempt application, the award was prepared and payments were made to the petitioner. At no stage of the proceeding i.e. from the year 1974 right up to the year 2008 when the award was prepared had the petitioner filed any protest against the actual acquisition of the lands and in fact his only grievance has been that State Government was not paying the compensation amount. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he should be granted 60 per cent solatium in view of the fact that the petitioner admittedly had never raised any protest against the acquisition of his land. Learned Counsel for the State submits that he ought to have filed an affidavit as required by memo nos. 395 and 1455 dated 19.02.2007 and 26.06.2007 7 respectively. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the entire proceedings was initiated and concluded while the matter was pending before this Court either at the stage when the writ application was filed or when the contempt application was being heard and, therefore, the petitioner could not have any opportunity in fact to file an affidavit regarding this aspect of the matter. Besides which, the earlier letters which are policy decisions cannot be said to be mandatory in nature which require that such an affidavit ought to be filed within a particular time mentioned in the aforesaid letters. In the special circumstances of this particular case, it would be proper for the State Government to accept the affidavit if any filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from today so that the petitioner may be paid 60 per cent solatium in view of the fact that h was willing for the acquisition of his lands. This writ application is thus allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand/A.F.R. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )