PURNI DEVI Vs. SHIBU MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the iudgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad in land acquisition reference cases. First Appeal No. 407 of 1963 arises out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 82/57 of 1961/62, which relates to acquisition of 12 decimals of land in survey plot No. 238, bearing khata No. 11, situated in village Barmasla, P. S. Dhanbad, pargana Jharia, in the district of Dhanbad, whereas First Appeal No. 408 of 1963 arises out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No, 81/56 of 1961/62 which relates to acquisition of 41 decimals of land in survey plot Nos. 14/1, 63, 157, 161, 171 and 178, bearing the same khata number, and situated in the same village, for the purpose of construction of foodgrains godown and staff quarters of the Eastern Railway for which declaration was made on the 4th September, 1957. and the same was also published in the Bihar Gazette, dated the 20th of November. 1957. bv the State of Bihar. Both these appeals have been heard together and this common judgment will govern them.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs, 594.09 for acquisition of 12 decimals of land, and Rs. 3.837 07 for acquisition of 41 decimals of land to Nathuram Poddar. On an objection being raised by Shibu Mahton and others (respondents Nos. 1 to 5) that they were entitled to the entire amount of compensation in both the cases, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute to the District Judge, who transferred it to the. learned Subordinate Judge for disposal. Learned Subordinate Judge after considering the evidence as led by the parties, allowed the objection of Shibu Mahton and others, holding that they were entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded, since Nathuram Poddar had no title over the lands acquired. Being aggrieved, Nathuram Poddar initially filed the present appeals In this court. Subsequently, he died. Therefore, his heirs Purni Devi and others were substituted.

(3.) Both the appeals were listed for hearing before my learned brother B. N, Jha, J. when Mr. S. K. Mazumdar. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, raised a preliminary objection on the basis of a Bench decision of this Court that since the valuation of the appeals were below ten thousand rupees, the appeals did not lie to this court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge passed on reference under Section 30 of the Act. His Lordship, therefore, by order dated the 27th August, 1970. directed both the appeals to be placed before a Division Bench. This is how they came before us.