STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JOBA MAHATHA ETC. ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Adi these appeals are taken up together for disposal as these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award passed by Shri Ram : Gopal Pandey, the then Sub Judge-cum-Special Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh on Land Reference Cases No.94 of 1990 to 122 of 1990, except Land Reference Case No. 94 of 1990 against which no appeal has been preferred. In total there were 55 Reference cases but only 54 appeals have been preferred against the common judgment.

(2.) In Mouza Bachiadih in the district of Hazaribagh an area of land measuring 84.89 acres were acquired by,the Bihar Government for construction of Keshav Jalasaya. Out of the 84.89 acres Of lands, there were several classification of lands according to its productivity and such classifications were made by the Collectorate during the course of acquisition for proper assessment of the valuation of the lands acquired. Classifications were in the form of Paddy yield Class-I, Class-11 and Class-111 lands then Ianr-I, Ianr-11 and Ianr-III lands and the rest as road and Parti lands. Notification under Sec. 4 was published in the year 1987 and then when no objection was filed then further Notification was made under Sec. 5 of the Act. According to the appellant, a rate report was prepared, in the Collectorate which has been marked as Ext. A considering 42 transactions regarding the classes of lands being acquired and then the Land Acquisition Officer made a recommendation to the Collector for various classes of lands at the rate of Rs. 468.75 per acre to Rs. 15,000.00 per acre. On the recommendations being made by the Land Acquisition Officer, objections were raised under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act by the various respondents and after hearing objections, the Collector made the award on 11.12.1989 on various types of lands as mentioned above running at the rate of Rs. 750.00 per acre to Rs. 24,000.00 per acre. Additional compensation was also awarded as per Sec. 23(2) of the Act. Various awardees received the awarded amounts in their shares without objection on various dates covering the months of March and April, 1990. But on 1.11.1990 prototype petitions were filed by the respondents under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference regarding the quantum of compensation. On the same very date, the Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge.

(3.) It is submitted for and on behalf of the State that although the notice under Sec. 9 of the L.A. Act was served on the awardees, but no objections were filed, except two awardees who wanted inclusion of their names as awardees and correction of area. As regards quantum of compensation, no objections have ever been raised and after receipt of payment in the months of March and April, 1990 only in the month of Nov., 1990 the Reference petitions were made under Sec. 18 of the Act, although payments were received by the Awardees without any protest or objection.