RAMESH PRASAD 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 establish - ment of a Super Thermal Power Plant of National Thermal Power Corporation in the Barh Sub -Division 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 there - after.

(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. 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.

(3.) UNDER the scheme of the Act, it would be seen that objections can be taken at different stages. It could be a pre -award objection. It could be a post -award objection or it could be an objection as to the apportionment of compensation. In my view, the position has been clearly brought to forefront by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant V/s. State of Bihar since, AIR 1966 SC 237 wherein the Apex Court has noticed this position of objection being available at different stages. In my view, where disputes are raised before the Collector under the Act with regard to apportionment which the Collector thinks he cannot decide or it involves disputed questions of title then in my view, the Collector is bound to refer the matter of apportionment of award/compensation to competent Civil Court! Once the matter is referred to competent Civil Court then all parties are free to establish their rights and the competent Civil Court is in a position to decide those questions. But a word of caution here is necessary. If objections raised are frivolous, baseless and prima facie do not satisfy the Collector then he cannot shirk his responsibility in the matter and shift the burden to the Civil Court by making a reference either in terms of Sec. 18 or Section 30 of the Act.