SHEO PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the State and for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 19.5.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Patna Division by which he has cancelled the award dated 30.3.2011 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua and re-determined the valuation of the acquired lands of the petitioners for constructing the Special Rail Project Corridor at Karma under Anchal-Kudra, District-Bhabua and directed the respondent No. 4 to prepare a fresh award in the light of the order passed by respondent No. 2 reducing the amount and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents initiated proceedings for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for constructing the aforesaid Special Rail Project Corridor under the provisions of the Railways Act. The respondent No. 4 as the competent authority under the statutory provisions gave his award on 30.3.2011. Unknown to the petitioners the respondent Railway being aggrieved by the amount determined approached the Commissioner, Patna Division under Section 20-F(6) of the Railways Act as the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government in the matter, but the petitioners were not even informed of the fact that the Railway had approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Patna Division also did not issue any notice to the petitioners. The fact that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Commissioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without providing them an opportunity of hearing and behind the back of the petitioners the Commissioner passed his award dated 19.5.2012 has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, despite specific direction of this Court to answer the said point. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners had filed representation before the Commissioner which was rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order/award of the Commissioner is fit to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice.