J DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau (Annexure D), passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 23 of 1957-58 on the 22nd November, 1965, refusing to make a reference to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the determination of valuation of the land acquired is under challenge.

(2.) It appears that a land acquisition proceeding was started for the acquisition of 30 acre of land out of the land of plots No. 1645/1915 and 1645/1904 along with the other lands by the Land Acquisition Officer, Palamau in Land Acquisition Case No. 23 of 1957-58. Notice of this proceeding was served on the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act and in pursuance thereof he filed objection before the officer asserting therein that the value of the land was worth more than Rs. 100 per 0.01 acre and as such he was entitled to get more than Rs. 3,000 as compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer after making inquiry made an award on the 15th January, 1959, under Section 11 of the Act. The award was prepared in respect of the aforesaid 30 acre of land in the name of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 156.98 was ascertained as compensation payable to him for the aforesaid 30 acre of land. One Haribansi Mahto claimed the compensation money in respect of the aforesaid .30 acre of land and filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for making reference under Section 30 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his letter No. 204, dated the 26th March, 1962, made a reference to the District Judge of Palamau for a decision as to which of the two claimants, viz., Dr. J. Dubey and Haribansi Mahto, was entitled to receive the compensation money. A sum of Rs. 156.98 was also deposited in court. Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1962 was started in the Court of the District Judge, in which Dr. J. Dubey was the applicant and Haribansi Mahto was the opposite party. Notice of this reference case was served on the petitioner on the 29th March, 1962. The petitioner appeared in the case and filed objection there. The relevant portion of his petition reads as follows:

(3.) Both the parties contested the case and adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned District Judge by his judgment dated the 7th June, 1965, held that the first party Dr. J. Dubey was entitled to receive the compensation money awarded in the case.