LILA MAHTON Vs. SHEO GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, on behalf of the petitioner, arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 136 of 1955, pending before Mr. Anant Singh, District Judge at Patna, against his order dated 29-6-55, by which he has disallowed- the petitioner from adducing evidence to substantiate his claim as 'shikmidar' in the land under reference.

(2.) The facts may be shortly stated thus: Municipal survey plot No. 1403 having an area of 3.674 acres in mauza Kazipur, tauzi No. 138 in the district of Patna,. was the subject-matter of a land acquisition proceeding, which was registered as Land Acquisition case No. 11/8 of 1952-53, before the Collector of Patna, Notices under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act were served, and in pursuance of such a notice the petitioner on 29-10-1954 filed an objection claiming, in the prayer portion, that he should be given compensation for the trees and well standing on the land, but in para 1 of the petition he also mentioned that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent. On 5-11-1954 the Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act. in which he mentioned three persons, namely, Sheogobind Prasad Singh, the opposite party Lila Mahton, the petitioner and another person who was a mortgagee, as being interested in the land, the compensation of which he assessed at Rs. 79,909/9/0. In the award Lila Mahton was described as 'shikmidar'. On 15-12-1954 Lila Mahton filed another petition before the Collector repeating his claim that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last 60 or 65 years on payment of rent, and he also said that he was a 'shikmidar' of the land. On 23-12-54 the opposite party filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Court, because, in para 5 of this petition he mentioned, he was surprised to find that the name of one Lila Mahto appears as 'shikmidar' in the award as one of the persons interested in the compensation awarded to him, who denied the 'shikmi' right of Lila Mahto, and, therefore, he said that the award was unacceptable, and asked for a reference to the Court. On 12-1-1955 notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioner. On 15-2-1955 the Collector made a reference purporting to act under Section 30 to the District Judge. It appears that the first reference was made by the Collector was on 15-4-55 which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 119 of 1955 in which the persons mentioned, as interested in the land, were only the two persons before this Court. He made a second reference on 29-4-55, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 136 of 1955. in which the persons interested in the land were mentioned to be three persons, two of whom are the parties before this Court. Subsequently, a third reference was made by the Collector on 12-5-55, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 370 of 1955, in which also the persons interested in the land mentioned were the same two persons, who are before us, and who were mentioned in the first reference. Along with this third reference the petition filed by Lila Mahto on 15-12-54 was sent to the Court of the District Judge. The learned District Judge took UD Land Acquisition Case No. 136 of 1955 on 29-6-55, and on that day the advocate appearing for Lila Mahto, the petitioner, wanted time to adduce evidence in support of his claim as 'shikmidar'. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of Sheogovind Prasad Singh, the opposite party, that Lila Mahton, having not put forth any claim in his objection filed on 29-10-54, in pursuance of the notice under Section 9 of the Act, on the ground of being a 'shikmidar', to any portion of the land under reference, before the Land Acquisition Officer, he should not be allowed to adduce evidence on this point. Before the learned District Judge a certified copy of the petition filed by Lila Mahto on 29-10-54 was filed by the opposite party in 'support of his aforesaid objection. The learned District Judge, on the basis of that petition thought that Lila Mahto had given up his claim, if any, to the value of the land, and therefore he thought that he should not be allowed to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim as 'shikmidar' in respect of the land in dispute. It is against this order that the petitioner has moved this Court in revision. I may mention here that it is not necessary to refer to the orders passed subsequent to this date, because when the petitioner has moved against the first order, other subsequent orders will automatically stand vacated, if we find that this order cannot be sustained.

(3.) After perusing the application and the order under revision we did not consider it necessary to hear the petitioner, and, therefore, we called upon the opposite party to show cause against the Rule.