PANNALAL MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Pannalal Maheshwari seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus from the High Court remanding the opposite parties to make payment in terms of an award made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20-11-1952, in respect of certain lands situated in village Khajurahi of the district of Gaya. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the opposite parties in this case.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant of 622.63 acres of raiyati kasht land in village Khajurahi. In the year 1949 there was a proposal made by the Government of Bihar for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Bihar Private Protected Forest Act. The petitioner filed an objection which was allowed by the appellate authority under the Act and the land in question was excluded from being acquired. Subsequently the State of Bihar initiated proceedings for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, (1894) (I of 1894). A declaration under Section 6 was issued by the State of Bihar on 11-2-1952. In pursuance of that declaration the Collector of Gaya issued a special notice under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act, on 1-3-1952, and possession of the land was also taken under Section 17 of the Act on behalf of the State of Bihar on 21-3-1952. The case of the petitioner is that on 15-11-1952, the Land Acquisition officer inspected the locality in presence of the parties and on 20-11-1952, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award fixing the rate of the land at Rs. 150/- per acre with the standing trees and bushes in addition to compensation at the rate of fifteen per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer also valued the proprietary interest which was fixed at the rate of Re. 1/- per acre, and there was a direction that cost of collection should be at the rate of ten per cent. and the Government revenue should also be deducted. A request was also made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Collector of Gaya to approve the report and it was approved on 22-11-1952. It appears that the report was forwarded by the Collector to the Commissioner of the Patna Division and later on the report was sent to the Board of Revenue. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of making the award the Collector of Gaya has not tendered the compensation money. On the contrary, he refused to make any payment on the ground that no award was made and signed and all that had been done was a preliminary estimate of costs for budget purposes. The other allegation of the petitioner is that Government directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re-examine the estimate of valuation and to submit a revised estimate or to give full justification for the existing estimate. The contention of the petitioner is that this interference by the Government is unlawful since the Land Acquisition Officer is the sole authority who is empowered by the statute to fix the valuation of the land on behalf of the State of Bihar. In these circumstances the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari should issue to the opposite parties restraining them from reopening the question of valuation and also commanding them to pay the compensation forthwith to the petitioner.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the opposite parties challenging the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Land Acquisition Officer did not prepare an award in accordance with Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, but that he merely prepared an estimate of probable cost of acquisition as required by paragraph 21 of Chapter III of the executive instructions printed at page 66 of the Bihar and Orissa Land Acquisition Manual. As regards the payment of compensation the contention of the opposite parties is that the stage for payment has not arisen since no award has been made as yet under Section 11, Land Acquisition Act.