Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.999 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12402 of 2009 ====================================================== Hazrat Makhdum Jahan Sheikh Sharfuddin Ahmad, Yahiya Maneri Waqf Estate No.22 its Sajjadanashin and Mutawali Syed Shah Mohammed Saifuddin Firdausi, son of Late Syed Amjad Firdausi, Mohalla - Khaquah, P.S. Laheri and Town Bihar Sharif, District - Nalanda through Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Amrit Lal Meena, the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Dr. B. Rajender, the Secretary Revenue, Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, the Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. Ajay Kumar, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 7. Dinesh Prasad Singh, the Circle Officer, Giriyak Anchal at Bihar Sharif 8. Imteyaz Ahmad Karimi, the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, through Its Secretary Haj Bhawan, Harding Road, Patna
Legal Reasoning
9. Sri A.K. Verma, National Project Construction Corporation Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Corporation Office at Plot No. 67 - 68 Sector 25, Faridabad ( Haryana ) 12004 10. N.K. Singh, Projector Manager, Bihar Zone, National Project Construction Corporation Limited 15, I.A.S. Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna (Bihar 800001). .... .... Respondent-Opposite Parties (Contemnors) ====================================================== For the Petitioner : M/s Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Md. Helal Ahmad and Mr. Raju Giri, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Principal Additional No. 1 to 7 Advocate General I, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate For Opp. Parties no. 9&10: Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
Decision
O R D E R 8 03-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for opposite parties no. 9 and 10. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 8. Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 2 2. This petition has been filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for violating the order of this Court dated 25.06.2012, by which C.W.J.C. No. 12402 of 2009 was disposed of with following directions/observations :- “22. In the aforesaid circumstances, dismantling of road and return of land to the petitioner instead of solving any problem would create a lot of problems for the general public, who are using the road and also for the authorities, who had spent lot of money upon the said construction. Hence due to the arbitrary steps taken by the authorities, the people of the area or even the State exchequer must not be allowed to suffer. A similar matter had come up before the Apex Court vide Civil Appeals No. 7016-7017 of 2005 and 7078 of 2005, which was decided vide order dated 22.11.2005 in the case of Competent Authority versus Barangore Jute Factory. 23. Thus, the only option left for the authorities of the State of Bihar is to take immediate steps under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land already used in the road and its flanks as it is quite apparent from the pleadings of respondent- Corporation and its authorities that the authorities of the State of Bihar had determined that the road shall be constructed over the land in question and only thereafter the Corporation was appointed as the Executing Agent and as per the directions of the authorities of the State of Bihar, the road was constructed and metalled under the Yojna. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of another Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Sah and another vrs. The State of Bihar and others) along with other analogous cases, according to which the only remedy left in this case is immediate acquisition of the land, on which road has already been constructed, and payment of the compensation land owner, namely, the to Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 3 petitioner as per the present market value of the land used in the road measuring 2.0725 acres. Such a land acquisition proceeding under section 17 of the Act must be started immediately within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and it must be completed within six months thereafter. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to construct its boundary wall on both sides immediately after the breadth of the above detailed land used in the said road.” 3. When this case was taken up on 26.06.2013 , learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that only 1.475 acres of land of Plot Nos. 900 and 928 (part) of Thana No. 335, village Dashrathpur had been acquired for road, whereas, the remaining lands were the lands of landowner, who was in possession thereof and was at liberty to use the same according to his own free will as per the provisions of law. 4. The said submission was supported by learned counsel for the petitioner, who also stated that only 1.475 acres of the said land have been acquired and taken by the opposite parties for the purposes of the road and the remaining land is in his possession. Hence the land acquisition proceeding was directed by the said order to be confined to only the aforesaid land measuring 1.475 acres. 5. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that on the said date the Government has Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 4 already sent the amount of compensation to the Collector for payment to the land holder, but the said amount has been sent without calculation of valuation of the lands existing in June, 2013 as according to the provisions of law, the compensation of land has to be fixed as per the valuation of land on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity), which in this case is 19.06.2013. Hence by the said order the authorities were directed to make payment of the amounts, which have been provided in law as compensation etc. to the land holder as per the valuation of land existing on 19.06.2013. 6. Now today a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the compensation paid by the authorities to the petitioner has been accepted under protest as it was much below the valuation of the land prevalent at the time of notice under section 4 of the Act. In paragraphs no. 6, 7 and 8 of the said supplementary affidavit, it has been stated as follows :- “6. That it is stated that at about a distance of 200 meters from the acquired land of the petitioner, a Pawapuri Medical College has been established. The entire area has converted into Educational/Commercial Hub. The lands of the area are being purchased and sold exclusively for commercial purposes. The petitioner has got hold a registered sale deed in regard to a land bearing Khata No.25, Khesra No. 717, area 1.75 decimals which is situated at 189 meters from the acquired land of the petitioner. This gets demonstrated Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 5 from the map of Mauza Dashrathpur, Thana No. 335, Anchal Giriyak, wherein both the lands are situated. It is stated that the aforesaid 1.75 decimals of the lands has been sold for Rs. 7 lakhs, which comes to Rs.4 lakhs per decimals. 7. That it is stated that if the opposite parties determine the compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per decimals than the basic compensation amount alone which is to be paid to the petitioner would be around Rs.6 crores. In addition to the said amount which would be as per the market value of the land, the opposite parties would also add a sum of (thirty per centum) on such market value particularly in view of the compulsory nature of the acquisition as provided under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Besides the said amount the petitioner is also required to be paid all other statutory benefits admissible to him. 8. That it is further stated that even the Government rate which is in effect from 15.04.2013 for the purpose of stamp duty on the sale and purchase of the lands in the area has been fixed on a higher side. In regard to village Dashrathpur (Thana no.335), for lands of industrial/commercial purposes the rate has been fixed as Rs.2,50,000/- per decimals. Since the lands in the area are being sold and purchased for commercial purposes, the lands of the petitioner should also be considered in the same parameter. Even calculating at the Government rate i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- per decimals, the basic compensation amount would be around Rs.3.75 crores.” 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed a supplementary show cause on behalf of opposite party no.5 i.e. the District Magistrate, Nalanda, specifically stating that the compensation has been calculated as per the provisions of law, which is quite justified and even the petitioner has accepted the same. He further submits that if the petitioner is not satisfied Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 6 he has got a remedy under section 18 of the Act to raise a claim before the authorities. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that this is a contempt proceeding due to violation of the order this Court dated 25.06.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12402 of 2009, in which it had been specifically found that the authorities had continuously violated the law and had usurped the land of the petitioner without any notice or information to him and without any compensation being paid therefor. 9. In the said circumstances, the authorities have to be governed by the orders of this Court, specially the aforesaid order of this Court, which has been violated as per the claim of the petitioner. In the said order, it was specifically mentioned that the payment had to be made as per the present market value and the law is well-settled that the prevalent market value of the land existing on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act has to be taken into account. The specific claim of the petitioner is that the market value prevalent in June, 2013, when notice under section 4 of the Act was issued, was much higher as is apparent from several Sale Deeds of the said area as well as the Circle Rate fixed by the Collector himself for payment of the same for Patna High Court MJC No.999 of 2013 (8) dt.03-07-2013 7 registration of document for lands of that area. 10. In the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an application before the Collector, Nalanda, who is entitled to fix the valuation as per the rate prevalent on 19.06.2013, along with copies of circle rate and registered documents of transfer of the said period with respect to the said area/Block within two weeks from today, whereafter, the Collector will calculate compensation and other statutory benefits as per the specific provisions of law and also as per the directions given hereinabove and if he finds that the amount so calculated is higher than the amount already paid to the petitioner, he will pass an appropriate order and prepare an amended Award and also make payments of the said remaining amount within one month positively from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. It may be noted that if this order is not complied by the authorities, then the authorities will be liable to strict punishment and the petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition. MPS/- (S.N. Hussain, J)