IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8566 of 2009 1. BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH 2. Bablu Prasad Singh @ Hemant Kumar, Both sons of Late Mahesh @ Mahendra Prasad Singh, Both residents of Village- Rajauli, P.O. and P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada :-- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Nawada. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, At Collectorate Building, Nawada, P.O., P.S. & District- Nawada :--- Respondents. ----------- 7. 07.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are the land holders. Their land was acquired for public purpose by the Collector, Nawada vide Land Acquisition Case No. 96/1981-82.They have filed this writ application for a direction to the State- respondents to pay them compensation as per the rate enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge under order dated 4th October, 1991 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 174/88, Annexure-1 as according to the petitioners the said judgment was rendered in connection with the similar lands of other land holders which was also acquired in the same proceeding, namely, Land Acquisition Case No. 96/1981-82 . 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this Court under orders dated 25.5.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1461 of 1984, as contained in Annexure-2, directed the Collector, Nawada to make reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act without any loss of time as earlier compensation for the said land was paid to Private Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 of the writ petition on the basis of the purcha granted in their favour under land ceiling proceeding taken against the petitioners. The purcha issued in favour of Private Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 was ultimately quashed as no surplus land under the Land Ceiling Act was found with the petitioners. The petitioners, however, were not ready to accept the - 2 - compensation fixed by the Collector under the Act, direction was given by this Court to the Collector of the District under order dated 25.05.2007, Annexure-2 to make reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector, in compliance of the directions of the High Court made reference under Letter No. 950 dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-4, perusal whereof indicates that with the reference letter he also enclosed the order of the High Court so that the question referred may become further clear to the Land Acquisition Judge. The Land Acquisition Judge under letter no. 1967 dated 12th November, 2008, Annexure-5, however, declined to entertain the reference observing that the High Court had directed the Collector, Nawada to dispose of the pending petition of the applicant Birendra Prasad Singh filed before the Collector, Nawada under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but the Collector instead of disposing of the reference himself had sent the reference to him. The Collector thereafter under Letter No. 1001 dated 21st November, 2008, Annexure-7 explained the circumstances in which reference was made by him to the Land Acquisition Judge. The Land Acquisition Judge thereafter under Letter No. 01 of 2009 dated 2nd January, 2009, Annexure-8 observed that reference under Section 18 is still incompetent for failure to comply Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. As regards reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, he observed that the same is not maintainable as there is no dispute about apportionment of the compensation amount. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State as also having perused the earlier order of this Court dated 25th May, 2007, Annexure-2, I am of the view that when the Collector made the reference under letter no. 950 dated 3rd November, 2008, Annexure-4 annexing the - 3 - copy of the order passed by this Court, Annexure-2 he substantially complied the provisions of Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act as every detail which is required to be considered and adjudicated in the reference is mentioned in the order of this Court and the District Judge, Nawada who is also the Land Acquisition Judge should have accepted the same. By not accepting the reference made under Letter dated 3rd November, 2008, Annexure-4 the District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge has acted in a hyper technical manner which is contrary to the purpose behind the enactment of the provisions contained in Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the orders passed by the District Judge contained in letter No. 1967 dated 12.11.2008, Annexure-5 and another Letter No. 01/2009 dated 2nd January, 2009, Annexure-8 are quashed with direction to the District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge to entertain and adjudicate the reference as made under Letter No. 950 dated 3rd November, 2008, Annexure-4 in the light of the facts stated in order dated 25.5.2007, Annexure-2, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case there is no dispute about the nature and valuation of the lands then the Land Acquisition Judge shall be obliged to dispose of the reference in the light of the findings about the nature/compensation of the land arrived at in order dated 4th October, 1991 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 174 of 1988, Annexure-1. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)