(R) 1. Om Prakash Rajgarhia 2. Keshar Devi 3. Lakhi Prasad Rajgarhia 4. Sanjay v. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Koderma Agriculture Marketing Board, Koderma
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.32 of 1997(R) 1. Om Prakash Rajgarhia 2. Keshar Devi 3. Lakhi Prasad Rajgarhia 4. Sanjay Kumar 5. Rakesh Kumar 6. Raj Kumar 7. Ram Ratan Lal 8. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay 9. Sashi Kant 10. Narendra Kumar 11. Sushil Kumar 12. Sunil Kumar 13. Pradeep Kumar 14. Bijay Kumar 15. Arun Kumar 16. Anand Kumar 17. Motilal Rajgarhia …… Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Koderma Agriculture Marketing Board, Koderma …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate ------------ 22/ 18.10.2013 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th January, 1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma in connection with Land Reference Case No.162 of 1989 whereby the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma has dismissed the case mainly on the ground that the reference was barred by limitation and it was not preferred within time, as required u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case is that land measuring an area 5.54 acres under Khata No.1016 and 1017 of village Tilaiya, P.S.-Koderma, Thana No.244, district – Hazaribagh was acquired vide notification No. PLA 2/81-82 for the use of Krishi Utpad Bazar Samiti, Jhumri Tilaiya. The notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act relating to award No.6 of Rs.2,51,332.50 was sent to the appellant and other landlords on 12.02.1987. The appellant, after receipt of the notice, raised objection vide letter dated 19th February, 1987 through registered post. The copy of the said letter has been marked Exhibit-2. The acknowledgment indicting service of said notice has been marked Exhibit-3 and the registered receipt has been marked Exhibit-4. 3. The learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition did not consider said letter 2. Exhibit-2 as an objection u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and dismissed the reference on the ground that no objection as required u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was raised by the appellant within time and therefore, held that the reference was barred u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and dismissed the case and hence this appeal. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is not necessary that the objector whose land has been acquired shall clearly indicate in the objection that the matter may be referred to the Special Judge, Land Acquisition. The contention made in Exhibit-2 is sufficient to constitute an objection as required u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Service of Exhibit-2 has not been denied by the respondent. The learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has also held in the impugned judgment that this objection letter was sent through registered post and it was duly received by the respondent but he has wrongly held that it was not an objection as required u/s
Decision
18 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has rightly held that no objection, as required u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was raised by the appellant within stipulated time. He has rightly dismissed the reference holding that the objection was barred by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. I have gone through the contention made in Exhibit-2. It appears that learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has considered certain addition in the said letter which, according to him, was added after the letter was sent but the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has admitted the rest of the contents made therein. From bare perusal of Exhibit-2 it is clear that the appellant has raised objection against the amount of compensation assessed as well as the rate on which the compensation was decided. 7. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is as under:- “18. Reference to Court.-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: 3. Provided that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.” 8. The contention made in Exhibit-2 clearly indicates that the appellant was not satisfied with the amount assessed and it was indicated that compensation amount was inadequate in view of the price prevalent in the local market. He has also indicated the grounds for such objection in the said letter. I do not think that any objector who is not satisfied with the compensation amount shall indicate in the letter of objection that the matter may be referred to the Court for deciding the dispute. If the objection and dis-satisfaction of the person whose land has been acquired is indicated in the application, that would suffice the requirement of Section 18 and the duty of the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer is to refer the matter to the Court for deciding the dispute. 9. In view of above discussions and the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, I am of the view that Exhibit-2 is sufficient to constitute an objection u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was within time and therefore, the findings of the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition in this regard is not tenable and the same stands set aside. Consequently, the judgment passed in Land Reference Case No.162 of 1989 dated 30th January, 1997 by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma to decide the main issue i.e. the actual compensation amount which is liable to be paid to the claimants/appellants by admitting evidence, if adduced, from both sides. It is also made clear that the parties shall appear before the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma within 60 days from today and they shall conclude their evidence within six months from the date of their appearance and the case must be decided within one year from the date of this order. 10. With these observations, this appeal stands allowed. NKC (D. N. Upadhyay, J.)