SHANTIBALA ALIAS SHANTILATA DEI Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAMANTARAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in Money Suit No. 374 of 1974 of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack is the appellant and the defendants 1 and 4 are respectively the respondents. Plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 14,463.43 paise including damages from defendants Nos. 1 and 4 jointly and severally. As per the impugned judgment passed on 3-10-1981, learned Subordinate Judge, granted the decree as against the defendant No. 1 with cost and dismissed the suit on contest against the defendant No. 4. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this appeal to make liable defendant No. 4 for payment of the decretal dues jointly and severally with the defendant No. 1. Plaintiff filed the appeal as a pauper and after disposal of that application on 28-4-1987 the First Appeal was registered.

(2.) Most of the facts are admitted position on record being supported by judgments and orders passed by the Civil Courts in earlier proceedings. Be that as it may, the case as projected by the plaintiff and as controverted by the defendants Nos. 1 and 4 in their separate written statements are stated in brief as follows.

(3.) Gauranga Nayak, the defendant No. 3 entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff but did not execute the sale deed even after receipt of the full consideration amount. Thus, plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 34 of 1963 in the Court of 1st Munsif, Cuttack seeking for the relief of specific performance of contract with respect to Ac. 0.242 decimals out of Ac. 0.355 decimals of land from Plot No. 1391 of Khata No. 789, under Tauzi No. 2615, situated in Mouza- Bahara Bisinabara, under Sadar Police-Station, Cuttack. That suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and on the failure of the defendant No. 3 to execute the sale deed in terms of the decree, plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 36 of 1969 and the 1st Munsif, Cuttack on 29-1-1971 executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the meantime, the State of Orissa acquired Ac. 0.210 decimals of land from the said Plot No. 1391 for the purpose of construction of staff quarters of Orissa State Electricity Board. In that respect Notification under Section 4(1) was made on 24-2-1967 and declaration on 15-4-1967. The Land Acquisition Collector after making assessment of the award at Rs. 26,534.44 paise passed order for payment of the same to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 granting 50% of such amount to each of them. An objection filed by the plaintiff to claim half share of the compensation amount on the basis of title and possession declared in Title Suit No. 34 of 1963. The Land Acquisition Collector deferred the matter for consideration and directed the plaintiff through her husband to file the copy of the judgment and decree. When the matter stood thus on 21 -7-1969 an application said to be signed by the plaintiffs husband withdrawing the claim of the plaintiff was entertained by the Land Acquisition Collector and he made payment of the amount to the defendant No. 1. In that respect, plaintiff alleges lack of bona fide in the conduct of the Land Acquisition Collector and clandestine manner in which the whole matter was managed by defendant No. 1 in connivance with the said officer inasmuch as according to the plaintiff neither she nor her husband filed any application withdrawing her claim. She has further stated that defendant No. 1s claim for title and possession was dismissed in 99 of 1969 Title Suit No.--------------filed by the said 2 of 1971 defendant so also the Title Appeal No. 114 of 1975 preferred against that judgment. Plaintiff has also stated that on her approach the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference to the Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. That reference was registered as Misc. Case No. 51 of 1969 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. On 23-7-1975, learned Subordinate Judge disposed of that reference allowing the claim of the plaintiff. Learned Subordinate Judge in that Award decided to maintain the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector but directed the later to determine the amount of compensation in favour of the plaintiff proportionate to the extent of land lost by her because no positive evidence was adduced before the Subordinate Judge about the extent of land lost by the plaintiff because of such acquisition. It is the admitted position on record that consequent upon that direction in the award passed by the Subordinate Judge no further follow up action was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, plaintiff instituted the money suit claiming the compensation amount of Rs. 13269.22 paise and damages of Rs. 1194.21 paise with the prayer to grant a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 4 jointly and severally. She has also alleged that a criminal case was initiated by the Police for clandestine manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer paid compensation amount to defendant No. 1 and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed.