NIDRA BEWA Vs. SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BOLANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bolangir under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having rejected the application to refer her claim for compensation for adjudication by Civil Court, the petitioner Smt. Nidra Bewa, wife of Dhobei Chandra Chhanda filed this application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order of rejection. As stated in the revision petition, A.20.95 decimals of land from Khata No. 1 in village Totamunda was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of 'Harihara Dora'. The said land belonged to one Bisol Chand, who left two sons, Rama and Dhobei. The petitioner Nidra Bewa is the widow of Dhobei and the opposite party No. 4 Gobardhan Chhand is her adopted son. Opposite parties 2 and 3 Maheshwar Chhand and Sachidanananda Chhand are sons of Brahmananda, son of Rama. After the death of Dhobei in 1950, the petitioner and the opposite party No. 4 have been in possession of the land. The petitioner alleges that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bolangir issued notices to the opposite parties 2 and 3, did not issue any notice to petitioner and opposite party No. 4 while taking of the proceeding under the Act. The petitioner came to learn that an award has been passed awarding compensation for the land in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3. Thereafter she and opposite party No. 4 filed an application under S.30 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of her claim for compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by the impugned order passed on 21-4-89 rejected her claim. He further held that compensation for A.14.45 decimals shall be paid to Maheswar Chhand and compensation for A.6.50 decimals to Sachidananda Chhand. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) On perusal of the order sheet of the proceeding before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bolangir it appears that the award in favour of Maheswar, son of Rama Chhand was passed on 23-5-88; on the application filed by the petitioner Nidra Bewa on 21-6-88 claiming half share in the compensation amount the payment was with held; on consideration of the matter the Land Acquisition Officer passed order dated 21-4-89 rejecting the claim of Nidra Bewa and directing apportionment of the compensation amount between Maheswar Chhand and Sachidananda Chhand in the manner noticed earlier; thereafter an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for referring the matter to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Act which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by order dated 6-6-89. Subsequently the compensation amount was paid to Maheswar and Sachidananda. From the order passed on 6-6-89 it appears that the application filed under S.18 of the Act was rejected on the grounds that Nidra Bewa never appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer at any time despite grant of sufficient opportunity, the petition filed under S. 18 of the Act by the Advocate for the petitioner was not authenticated by her which shows that she is not interested for compensation and the petition has not been filed within the statutory period as provided under S. 18(2)(a) and (b) of the Act.

(3.) From the facts discussed above, it is clear that though revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-4-89 under the impression that by the said order petitioner's application for reference was rejected, it is indeed by order dated 6-6-89 that her prayer for reference was turned down. There appears to have been a lot of confusion in the matter as revealed from the order sheet. The application filed by the petitioner on 21-6-88 claiming half share in the compensation amount was filed after the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of Maheswar Chhand. Therefore the said application could be entertained either under S. 18 or under S. 30 of the Act. However the application was dealt with as a mere claim by the applicant for compensation and while passing the order dated 21-4-89 it was stated in the last sentence that the land acquisition compensation for A.14.45 decimals from Khata No. 21 of 1936-37 settlement be paid to Maheshwar Chhand and 4--6-50 decimals from the said Khata to Shri Sachidananda Chhand after of the statutory period of appeal and S. 18 of the Act. Though in the order dated 6-6-89 it is stated that a petition has been filed under S. 18 of the Act by Shri J. P. Panigrahi, Advocate for Nidra Bewa on 6-5-89, no such application is available in the record. The only application filed by Shri Panigrahi, Advocate for the petitioner was dated 27-7-88 wherein the prayer was that the land acquisition compensation amount be apportioned into two equal shares and compensation amount due to Dhobei Chhand may be awarded to the petitioner Nidra Bewa separately. However, the learned counsel for both parties have argued the case with reference to the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the petitioner's prayer for reference to the Civil Court, I shall deal with the case accordingly.