STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LOHRA TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of five appeals arises out of judgment and decree dated 22-6-1964 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Chota-nagpur, Ranchi, under which he revised the compensation awarded to the claimants, namely, the respondents, by the Collector. First Appeal No. 462 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 37/190 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 463 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 40/193 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 464 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 42/193 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 465 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 41/188 of 1963/64 and First Appeal No. 466 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 39/192 of 1963/64, the claimants in the respective cases befng Lohra Toppo, Budhwa Oraon, Sobha Oraon with two others, Gondla Oraon and Etwa Oraon. The contention of the parties in this court being common, all these appeals are decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals lie in a short compass. 4.63 acres of land in village Kadru, which is situated within the Doranda Notified Area of Ranchi Town was acquired for construction of quarters for forest staff. The notification relating to the acquisition was published in the Bihar Gazette on the 25th of September, 1961 and the value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,700/- per acre. Notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were admittedly served on Lohra Toppo, Etwa Oraon and Gondla Oraon, who also filed their claim petitions in pursuance of such notice. According to them, the land should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 36,000 per acre. Service of notices on the claimants in the other two cases, namely, Budhwa Oraon and Sobha Oraon and others is, however, disputed. According to the defendant-appellant, the State of Bihar, proper service of notice had been made on them and yet they did not file any claim petition under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the respondents, however, there was no proper service on them and, therefore, notwithstanding the non-filing of claim petitions, their cases were not hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Before the Judicial Commissioner, the claims on behalf of the claimants-respondents were contested on two grounds:--