VINOD PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the first appeals have been filed by the land holders-Sahoo, J. Appellants against the common judgment dated 17.2001 passed by Sri Madan Gopal Prasad, the Land Acquisition Judge-cum-Sub Judge-I, Sitamarhi in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1993 and Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1993 dismissing the reference case.

(2.) The admitted facts may be briefly stated that award No. 28 dated 17.2.1984 was prepared for Rs. 5941.79 paise for 31 decimal in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1993. Likewise in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1993 award No. 38 was prepared for Rs. 28750.58 paise for 1 acre 50 decimal on 17.2.1984. The possession of the lands which were acquired for Bagmati Project was taken on 5.6.1984. The original clamant Sitaram Prasad received the compensation under protest. Sitaram Prasad died and his legal representatives are the Appellants in both the appeals. The Appellants did not file application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference for enhancement of the compensation. However, the other awardee namely Birendra Prasad whose land was also acquired for the same purpose by the same notification and who was co-sharer of the Appellants filed application for reference to the Land Acquisition Judge and before the Land Acquisition Judge his case was numbered as L.A. Case No. 52 of 1986/ 149 of 1986. The said L.A. Case was allowed by the Land Acquisition Judge by terms of judgment dated 7.12.1991 and the compensation was enhanced by fixing the prevalent market value of the land at Rs. 1700/- per decimal. When the Appellants came to know about the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge in both the cases the Appellants filed application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the application to the Land Acquisition Judge and the Land Acquisition Judge by this impugned judgment dismissed both the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Against this judgment the present appeals have been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr. Khatim Reza appearing on behalf of the Appellants in both the appeals raised a short question of law in these appeals and submitted that the appeals can be decided on this question of law alone. According to the learned Counsel on an application under Section 28-A of L.A. Act the Collector was duty bound to hold an enquiry under Sub-Section 2 of Section 28-A and make an award. He had no authority to refer the application under Sub-Section 1 of Section 28-A to the Court unless award is made by him and the applicant filed an application under Sub-Section 3 of Section 28-A praying for referring the application to the Court on the ground that he has not accepted the award made under Sub-Section 2.