ARJUN YADAV Vs. THE STALE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions there is a common question of law and, therefore, with consent of parties, all these writ petitions were clubbed together and taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. All these writ petitions arise out of various land acquisition proceedings, simultaneously initiated one of them being LA. Case Nos. 2 of 1999-2000 and 10 of 2001, as before the Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. Substantial lands were acquired for establishment of ordinance factory at Rajgir in the district of Nalanda. Various awards were purported to be made in these land acquisition proceedings. One of the alleged awards in this case was Award No. 60. There were other similar awards as well where compensation amount and land area differ. All the petitioners in various writs are interested in respect of those awards. Award No. 60 is purported to be dated 21.10.2002. It is part of Annexure-2 to the first writ petition. A perusal of the award shows that it is in respect of total of 46.38 acres of land and the sum total amount of compensation is shown to be Rs. 67,26,798.00, but when it comes to the awardees it is clearly mentioned none. The question would be, is it an award in terms of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in brevity 'Act'). This is the issue because what happened was that the claimants came and they were claiming lands in excess of this area was actually being acquired which fell in this area. Who had what claim all that was not known? Accordingly, not knowing who were the awardees the Collector made a reference to the Civil Court in terms of Section 30 of the Act. This was then decided by the Civil Court whereby the Civil Court identified the persons entitled to compensation. The matter was then received back in the land acquisition office and parties were then issued notices under Section 12(2) of the Act after identifying the awardees and apportionating their compensation. Thereafter, in accordance with the apportionment order under Section 30 of the Act to the awardees, as per the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, payments were made. Large number of awardees not being satisfied with the award, though received their payments, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif has rejected all those applications, as barred by limitation, holding that the award was made on 12.6.2001 and their applications under Section 18 of the Act were being filed in the year 2010, which was much beyond six months/six weeks as the case may be. It is the correctness of this stand in law that is under challenge.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an award, as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, has three components before it can be called an award. It must give the area of land for which the award is being made. It must give the quantum of compensation and it must name the awardees. Unless, these three components are there, there cannot be an award. Thus, his submission would be that if we see the so-called award dated 12.6.2001, we would find that all it mentions is the total area of land, being 46.38 acres. The total compensation for these 46.38 acres being about Rs. 67 lakhs, but who is to get this compensation is not stated at all. Who are the awardees in the award, if it is an award, is not known? It is not that the right of any claimant is accepted or rejected by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer. Instead of deciding this issue himself and passing an award accordingly, he merely refers the matter postponing it till Civil Court decides it under Section 30 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the award would be one which was prepared after the order of the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act when the rights of parties and the compensation being received by them became known. The right to file a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act would then arise. If notice of the award is then issued, which in this case was issued in the year 2010 on different dates, then the six weeks time would be counted from that day. If this is taken into account then the applications filed under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter in respect of enhancement of compensation is within time and the stand of the District Land Acquisition Officer is wrong.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that once an award is made, which was done on 12.6.2001, it is an award laying down the land to be acquired and the compensation payable. Anyone aggrieved could have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act then and there. Not having been done, they have lost their chance in law. It is also submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State that the order of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif is, thus, correct.