Sachida Nand Lal @ Sachida Nand Shah vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on February 16, 1978, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata Nos. 277 and 107 situated in the town of Lohardaga of Ranchi for construction of agricultural market-yard. According to the appellant, the Collector divided the land into two categories; (i) category `ka' and (ii) category `kha'. The land situated up to 150 feet from the road was categorized as `ka' whereas land situated beyond 150 feet from the road was categorized as `kha'. The Collector assessed the value of the land of category `ka' at the rate of Rs.48,500/- per acre and category `kha' at the rate of Rs.32,335/- per acre. It was, however, the allegation of the appellant that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar illegally and without any reason or ground and without authority of law reduced the rate to Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- per acre for category `ka' and `kha' respectively. Accordingly, an award was passed on May 05, 1980 on that basis.

4. The appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by Reference Court by filing First Appeal No. 229 of 1989 in the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench. The learned Single Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing partly allowed it. So far as the land 4 of category `ka' is concerned, he enhanced compensation from Rs.48,000/- per acre to Rs.66,000/- per acre. He, however, declined to interfere with the rate of `kha' category of land and no enhancement at all was granted to the said land, though the Reference Court had observed in the order that category `kha' would get 50% amount of compensation of the land of category `ka'.

7. On November 13, 2000, the petition was called out for hearing. Service of notice was complete, but none appeared for the respondent and hence leave was granted. It was thereafter placed for final hearing before the Court, but it was brought to the notice of the Court that in the light of bifurcation of two states of

10. In our opinion, however, the matter deserves to be allowed on the first ground and it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the second question on merits of the matter.

19. The same principle applies in the present case also. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the 12 Letters Patent Appeal cannot be said to be in accordance with law and the said order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench is set aside. The appeal stands allowed and the matter is remanded to Division Bench which will now hear the parties on merits and decide the case in accordance with law by a reasoned judgment. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

20. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter one way or the other. All the observations made by us hereinabove have been made only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. As and when the matter will be placed for hearing before the Division Bench, the same will be decided strictly on its own merits without being influenced by the above observations.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 13