IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.133 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate (Collector), Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Secretary cum Commissioner Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Versus GOPAL MISHRA, son of late Radhakrishna Mishra, resident of village Aruhi, PO Panjar, PS Karghar District Rohtas at Sasaram ----------- With LPA No.174 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate (Collector), Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Secretary cum Commissioner Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna Versus JAGNARAYAN MISHRA, son of late Shivdhari Mishra, resident of village Aruhi, PO Panjar, PS Karghar District Rohtas at Sasaram ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 3 Mr. Satyabir Bharti, AC to AAG 3 For the respondents: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandit, Advocate ----------- 4 13-05-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and learned counsel for the respondents. The facts of the present cases are not in dispute. Briefly stated, the writ petitions which have been allowed by the court were filed in the year 2007 seeking a relief against the State of Bihar and its functionaries to pay to the petitioners the award money for the lands acquired in the year 1980. The notifications issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were of the year 1980. The award was also made on 21-07-1982 but for lack of funds no payments were made for a long number of years. It is not in dispute that possession of the land was taken in the year 1980 itself and a road was constructed over the said land soon thereafter. - 2 - On account of pendency of the writ petitions the authorities arranged for necessary funds and communicated the award in the month of June, 2008. The writ petitioners were called upon to collect the compensation on 18-6-2008. The writ court noticed that the compensation was calculated at the market value of land prevailing on the date of issue of notification u/s 4 of the Act and on that ground it proceeded to quash the award dated 21-7-1982 holding that such determination of compensation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. After quashing the award the writ court directed the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram to prepare another award on the basis of market value of the land prevailing on 11-6-2008, the date of issue of notice under Sub Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Learned AAG 3 appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the statutory provision in Section 23 of the Act provides that for calculating compensation the value of the land prevailing on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act is required to be kept in mind and the compensation determined as per Section 23 undergoes further enhancement on account of provision for interest made in Section 34 of the Act. He has submitted that these statutory provisions take care of the delay and in any case if the compensation amount is not adequate, the writ petitioners as land owners had the remedy of seeking reference u/s 18 of the Act. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order under appeal and has submitted that since the - 3 - unusual delay of 26 years in formal notice of the award has caused financial loss to the land holders hence, the writ court has held such action to be arbitrary and in breach of Article 14 of Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that in order to adequately compensate the land owners the writ court has directed for preparing a fresh award on the basis of market value of the land on the date the notice of the award was given to the land owners. However, no provision under the Act or any binding precedent was cited before us which may require the concerned authorities under the Act to ignore the provision in Section 23 of the Act and determine the market value of the land on the basis of a date other than the date of publication of the notification under Sub section (1) of Section 4 the Act. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that the writ petitions were filed after more than 25 years since the possession of the land was taken and 24 years after award was made but still there was no challenge to the acquisition proceeding or the award and only prayer was to expedite the payment of compensation. Even the subsequent prayer is in substance not to quash the award so as to make the land free of acquisition but only for a fresh award for which the market value of the land be taken as on 11-6-08, the date of issue of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act The relevant provisions of the Act have to be scrupulously followed by the authorities under the Act and they cannot ignore the legislative provisions such as one u/s 23 of the Act. Even if this court finds that in a given case some unusual hardship has been caused to - 4 - the land owners, the permissible relief may be either to award lumpsum damages or to direct the land owners to seek revised compensation by resorting to reference u/s 18 of the Act. In view of facts noticed earlier and the discussions made above we are of the view that award in the instant case should not be quashed only on the ground that the notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act was given to the land owners after a long delay, particularly when writ petitions were filed after considerable delay mainly for payment of compensation. The land owners on account of delay in payment of compensation money are entitled to compensation by way of interest as provided u/s 34 of the Act. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 has clarified that “ the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium”. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Chandra Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, AIR, 1961, SC, 1500. In that case the issue related to limitation for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act and in that context the Apex Court held that the relevant date would mean the date on which the party concerned got knowledge of the award. Further in paragraph 5 of the judgement the Apex Court observed that the true nature of the award is that of an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector and if the owner accepts the offer then no further proceeding is required. If the offer is not accepted, Section 18 provides a statutory right to the owner of the - 5 - land of getting the relevant issue determined by the court. This judgement does not help the respondents to support the quashing of the award on the ground of delay in its communication through notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the award made on 21-7-82 does not require any interference especially when the writ petitions were filed in the year 2007 only for the purpose of securing higher compensation. For that purpose the land holders must resort to statutory remedy u/s 18 of the Act. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgement and order of the writ court under appeal is set aside. It is clarified that the respondents land holders will be entitled to claim higher compensation in accordance with law through reference u/s 18 of the Act. The delay in preferring such proceeding can be well explained on account of pendency of the writ petitions including the appeals and hence, the limitation in the facts of the case will not to be counted from the date of notice of the award, that is, 11-6-08, but from today when this appeal has been allowed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)