IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3728 of 2004 SHYAMA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 18 18/4/2009 This case has been listed at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner points out following typographical error/omission in the order dated 4.3.2008 namely- (a) At page 2 in the fifth line from bottom, one word „it‟ should have been 'its', (b) in page 3 in the last line in place of 'end' „and‟ has been typed, (c) in page 4 in 8th line from the top in place of 'convince', 'convience' has been typed (d) in the third line from bottom in the same page 'vitiate' has been typed which should be 'get vitiated', (e) in page 5 there has been omission of one line in paragraph 9, i.e, „said issue of payment of additional compensation in‟ (f) in the last paragraph of the same page 5 the word „for‟ has been left out (g) in the same page 5 in 2 fifth line and last line from the bottom, the expression „within the‟ and „that‟ has been wrongly typed and (h) in the last page „to‟ and „of harassment‟ has been left out in the second line from top. Counsel for the Respondents also agree they are purely typographical error/omission. Accordingly these typographical errors/omissions are directed to be corrected and the order would now read as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner by filing a writ application in the month of March, 2004 has made a prayer that a direction be given to the authorities to prepare award and make payment in respect of the land of the petitioner which has been utilized in connection with L.A. case no. 1/96-97 for the purpose of construction of approach road namely Punpun River Approach Road. Initially respondents came out with a plea in the counter affidavit filed on 4.4.2005 that only 7.165 acres of the land was acquired in L.A. case no. 1/96-97 and when its possession was also handed over to 3 Requisitioning authorities on 14.8.1997, land of the petitioner was not acquired and as such the petitioner was not entitled for payment of compensation. Subsequently, when the petitioner protested and filed a exhaustive rejoinder, the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit filed on 10.2.2006 had accepted that on verification it was found that ten decimal of land of the petitioner was acquired in the aforementioned scheme and for that the Government was actively contemplating to make payment of the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner did not accept the same and when he had challenged the said stand of the respondents, third supplementary counter affidavit came to be filed on 12.12.2006 where now it has been stated that ten decimal of land of the petitioner was already utilized for the construction of the approach road has been finally sought to be acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Today the petitioner has also produced notice/receipt showing an offer of payment of 80 per cent of the amount in L.A. Case no. 12/06-07 which as 4 indicated above, not initiated only ten decimal of land of the petitioner when he brought this fact to this court that his land was acquired even though not formally acquired. Counsel for the petitioner in such view of the matter, has made a submission that the petitioner should have been paid not only full amount of hundred per cent of compensation but also with suitable amount of damage of compensation for the period 1996 onwards on account of his land being acquired even without payment of a single paise to him and its being used by the State without initiating any proceeding. He further submits that had he not filed the writ application his land in fact could have been remained under the control of the State without payment of any amount. He has therefore, submitted that this Court in the facts and circumstances may pass an order imposing exemplary cost for depriving the petitioner of legitimate amount of compensation payable to the petitioner for a period over ten years. Ms. Binita Singh, counsel appearing 5 on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that when huge chunk of land was acquired for approach road and the authorities on some technical ground had initially found the land of the petitioner measuring ten decimal to be not utilized but eventually they having realized that the land of the petitioner was already made subject matter of the earlier acquisition proceeding in L.A. case no. 1/96-97, had taken corrective measures by initiating a fresh proceeding for acquisition of land vide L.A. Case no. 12/06- 07. She has also assured this Court the State will always be liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss sustained by him due to delay caused in initiating the proceeding which in her opinion can be more effectively gone into in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the petitioner. Having considered the rival submissions at the Bar, this court is of the view that there can not be any dispute on the proposition that the petitioner has been really harassed to no uncertain end by the authorities who had neither callously or 6 negligently acquired ten decimal of land of the petitioner without making any payment for all these eleven years. This court is also of the view that had the petitioner not initiated this writ proceeding, the authorities have never started the proceedings of Land Acquisition case no. 12/06-07 specially when the respondents in their earlier stand had made an attempt to convince this court that no portion of land of the petitioner had been acquired in L.A. Case no. 1/96-97. The submission of Ms. Singh that the petitioner at least to day has been paid a very high amount of compensation in comparison of the year 1996 also does not impress this Court for the simple reason that the Constitution of India under Article 300A had made a provision that no person shall be deprived of property save by the authority of law. In that view of the matter, the submissions of the State must be rejected. Coming to the relief that the petitioner would be entitled, this court finds that in terms of section 17 of the L.A. Act the petitioner has been offered 80 per cent of the amount and that remaining 20 per cent will 7 be definitely paid to him within the statutory period, failing which the whole proceeding itself will get vitiated under Section 11A of the Act. Accordingly, it is directed that the award must be made within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and payment thereof must be paid to the petitioner in the next six weeks. After such award has been made and the entire hundred per cent as determined under the Act is paid to the petitioner, if the petitioner comes with a specific plea and seeks reference under Section 18 of the Act he would be entitled for payment of additional compensation on the ground of his being deprived possession of the land for the last 11 years. To that extent the facts admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit will itself be good enough to establish the case of the petitioner as with regard to the additional compensation and no separate evidence would be required to be taken into consideration for this purpose. The present order of this court would be sufficient for the court deciding the said 8 issue of payment of additional compensation in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. In view of the fact that the petitioner has suffered for all these period, the petitioner may seek reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Collector under the Act shall ensure that such reference is made within the shortest possible time. The reference court will given due priority to the aforementioned reference case and shall make all endeavours to dispose of the same within one year from the date such reference is received by the Court below. Coming now to the question of harassment, this court finds the present case is a fit case in which the State must be saddled with heavy cost for depriving the petitioner amount of compensation and also in fact getting the land acquisition proceeding completed only when he had approached this court. The petitioner is accordingly, entitled for payment of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by way of cost which must be paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this application is 9 allowed to the extent indicated above.” Any certified copy of the aforesaid order, if issued, may be corrected to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar