IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.366 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6704 of 2009 ====================================================== Bharat Petyroleum Corporation Ltd., through its territorial Manager (Retial), Patna and constituted attorney of the Corporation at and P.O. Pakri, via Anisabad, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Devendra Paswan, son of late Mundrika Paswan, resident of village Pakari, Plot No. 270, Police Station Phulwarisharif (New Beur) P.O. Pakari via Anishabad, district Patna 1. Amarika Paswan @ Amerika Paswan, son of Late Gunjar Paswan, resident of village Pakari, Plot No. 508, Police Station Phulwarisharif (New Beur), P.O. Pakari, via Anishabad, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s (1st set) 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Revenue, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Patna Division , Patna 4. The Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Patna 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 6. The Executive Engineer, Gardanibagh Building Construction Division, Patna … … Respondent/s (2nd set) ====================================================== WITH Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3348 of 2011 ====================================================== 2. Devendra Paswan, son of late Mundrika Paswan, resident of village Pakari, Plot No. 270, Police Station Phulwarisharif (New Beur) P.O. Pakari via Anishabad, district Patna 3. Amarika Paswan @ Amerika Paswan, son of Late Gunjar Paswan, resident of village Pakari, Plot No. 508, Police Station Phulwarisharif (New Beur), P.O. Pakari, via Anishabad, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Patna 3. Mr. K. Padmaker, Deputy General manager (Corporate) HRS cum Territorial Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In C. REV. No.366 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s 1st set : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate For the Respondent/s 2nd set: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 1 (In MJC No.3348 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 1 Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 2 / 5 2 For the B.P.C.L. :- Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 3 09-11-2011 This contempt application and the review application are being heard together. When the contempt application was filed on behalf of the two petitioners, a review application was also filed on behalf of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through its territory Manager bringing on record certain facts which shocked this Court. It would appear that one of the petitioners i.e. Amarika Paswan had filed a writ application, CWJC No. 9278 of 2004, which was disposed of on 16.11.2005. In the said writ application, there was a prayer on behalf of the petitioners that they should be paid compensation for the structures standing on their acquired land. While dealing with this issue, this Court has found that the award was prepared on 31.05.2000. After the preparation of the award, the Executive Engineer had submitted a report with respect to the valuation of the property of the petitioner Amarika Paswan. The Court came to the finding that this report submitted after the preparation of the final award cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of paying Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 3 / 5 3 compensation. The order of the Court passed in CWJC No. 9278 of 2004 was suppressed by the petitioner Amarika Paswan. In the writ application filed before this Court, a prayer was made that the land of the petitioner should be released in favour of the petitioner. A counter affidavit was filed by the then Land Acquisition Officer, who at paragraph 7, stated that the Executive Engineer, Gardanibagh Building Division has reported that the valuation of the structure of the petitioner Devendra Paswan was Rs. 25,847/- and the valuation of the structure on the land acquired belong to Amarika Paswan was Rs. 19,927/-. On the basis of the said statement in the counter affidavit, this Court directed that payment should be made to these two petitioners. The petitioners thereafter approached the Collector, Patna for payment of the said compensation amount. The Collector, Patna wrote to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to make the payments or else they would be liable for contempt, which has brought this matter to this head. The manner in which the State files counter affidavits in the Court without examining the records and concerned files indicates their slip shod attitude towards their works. Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 4 / 5 4 I also find that the petitioners have committed a grave mistake and are liable for action for suppressing vital facts from the Court. In the result, I impose cost of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner Amarika Paswan to be deposited in the account of the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one month from today, failing which the Court will take a very serious view and may initiate criminal proceedings for suppression of vital facts. Similarly, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. 1000/- each on respondents 4 and 5 i.e. the Collector –cum- District Magistrate, Patna and the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna who have filed the affidavit in CWJC No. 6704 of 2009 which states incomplete facts and also suppressed vital facts relating to this case. They are required to deposit the aforesaid cost in the account of the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one month from today, failing which the respondents 4 and 5 would be liable for action by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed and the review application is allowed and the order of this Court dated 27.08.2010 passed in CWJC No. 6704 of 2009 is Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2010 (3) dt.09-11-2011 5 / 5 5 reviewed and is held that CWJC No. 6704 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 9278 of 2004 covering the same subject matter. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)