RAMESH PARASD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding for acquisition of about 2:59 acres of land was initiated in respect of lands at village-Harbanshpur in the district of Patna for the purpose of establishment of a Super Thermal Power Plant of National Thermal Power Corporation in the Barh Subdivision of Patna. Notifications were issued in this regard under the Land acquisition Act calling for objections. Various objections were decided and on 11-3-2005, notice for payment of 80% of the value as determined in terms of Section 12 of the act was issued in favour of the petitioner. On 21-3-2005, possession of land was taken over and handed over to National Thermal power Corporation. Various objections were again filed but ultimately a cheque dated 3-5-2005, as aforesaid, was issued in favour of the petitioner but immediately on petitioner depositing the same, the cheque was returned uncashed with advice that payment had been stopped. This is what brought the petitioner to this Court. During pendency of the writ application, it has been brought on record that pursuant to some objections again being raised, the Collector under the act had ordered for stopping payment of the cheque and, thereafter, noticing the disputes with regard to claim and apportionment of compensation, referred the matter to Civil court in terms of Section 30 of the Act which order is also challenged. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that once cheque was issued in his favour, the Collector, under the act, had no jurisdiction to order its payment to be stopped and/or to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court in terms of Section 30. Private respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are basically the objectors. Some of whom objected prior to preparation of the award and some objected thereafter.

(2.) STATE and the private respondents have taken stand that there being serious dispute raised with regard to apportionment of compensation, it was only fit and proper for the collector to stop payment and refer the matter to the Civil Court.

(3.) DETAILED arguments were made to show how the five private respondents are related to the petitioner and how they have little or no concern with the lands in question. Endeavour has also been made to establish, with reference to the order sheet of the acquisition proceedings, that some of the private respondents (objectors) had objected but their objections had been rejected but once again some others, who were closely related, objected and in this manner, the due payment to the petitioner was mala fide got stopped.