JANKI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case shows how State exchequer is plundered because of negligence either deliberate or otherwise of State officials. This is so merely because there is absolutely no answerability. At the request of the court Sri Lalit Kishore, the Principal Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed with rejoinder thereto. There is an intervention application as well being I.A. No. 1118/2014.

(2.) Before proceeding further it is appropriate to dispose of the interlocutory application. By the interlocutory application, the interveners claim that the petitioner has received more than her share of compensation. The interveners are nephew of the petitioner. In my view this is a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation which dispute can only be dealt with under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). If the interveners have any grievance in that regard, it is open to them to make an application in terms of section 30 of the Act before the appropriate authority. It is not that they were not aware of the proceedings. Notices had been issued to them. This can only be appropriately dealt with under section 30 of the Act and not in these writ proceedings.

(3.) Now coming to the main grievance of the petitioner. Undoubtedly Land Acquisition Case No. 32/2006-07 was initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patna for acquiring substantial lands for establishing the Storm Water Drainage System in respect of N.T.P.C. at Barh. The notification under section 4 with aid of section 17(4) of the Act was issued on 4.1.2007 followed by declaration under section 6 which notification was published on 5.1.2007. Regrettably though the law is that after paying or at least tendering payment of 80% compensation, possession can be taken, what was done was just reverse. On 24.7.2007 possession was taken without payment of a single farthing. 80% compensation was paid to the petitioner some time in the year 2008. Petitioner's grievance is that while paying 80% compensation, no compensation was calculated in respect of trees that were standing on the aforesaid land. The balance 20% is also yet to be paid even though over seven years have elapsed.