JIWAN LALL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the award and decree of the first Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur, Ranchi, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 60 of 1960. By a notification dated the 30th May, 1956 (Exhibit Ta), published in the Bihar Gazette of July 4, 1956, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), 53.35 acres of land situated in Mouzas Argora, Karru and Hinoo were acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of officers' quarters. Out of these lands, 14.55 acres, forming parts of revisional survey plot Nos. 3912, 3913, 3914 and 3915 of village Argora and plot No. 920 of village Karru, belonged to the appellants. The lands were notified to be acquired for construction of officers' quarters. It appears that this purpose was later on abandoned and the acquisition proceedings were completed and the lands were acquired and made over to Hindustan Steel (P) Limited. Declaration under Section 6 had been published prior to the abandonment of the purpose as stated in the notification under Section 4 on the 4th December, 1957. On the 7th January, 1959, a letter which is part of Exhibit 5 (Kha) is said to have been written to the Accountant General, Bihar, as to whether he would like to have the land for the purposes of the Accountant General's office. A reply dated the 21st of January, 1959, was given by the Accountant General which is also contained in Exhibit 5(Kha), making some enquiries in connection with the details of the land. It, however, appears from Exhibit Kha/1, the order sheet of the Land Acquisition Officer, that the matter was not finalised with the Accountant General's office and, eventually, on the 20th April, 1959, order No. 18 was recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer stating that it had been decided to acquire the land by the State Government for transfer to the Hindustan Steel (P) Limited and in the month of April, 1959 the land was acquired and made over to the Hindustan Steel (P) Ltd. This fact further finds support from the letter dated the 16th April, 1959, Exhibit 5 (Ga), from the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Officer finalised and gave his award on the 22nd April, 1959. He proceeded upon the rate reports of the Kanungo and valued the lands dividing them in two classes. He fixed for class A land the value of Rs. 12,000/ - per acre and for class B land at Rs. 7,000/ - per acre. A reference was made to the Judicial Commissioner at. Ranchi under Section 18 of the Act at the instance of the appellants. The reference has been disposed o by the Additional Judicial Commissioner who has fixed the average market rate of the lands acquired with reference to the date when the notification under Section 4 was made. This average rate has been fixed at Rs. 397.40 P. per katha which would, roughly, work up to Rs. 23,820/ - per acre. Out of the value as fixed, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has reduced the price by 40 per cent for the reasons stated in his judgment and lias further made reduction of 25 per cent on account of the rayati lands measuring 2.10 acres, the remaining area 12.45 acres being land of chhapparbandi character.

(3.) Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted in the first instance that the market value of the lands prevailing in early 1959 ought to have been taken into consideration for determining the price of the land acquired. He contended that the original purpose having been abandoned, the lands will be deemed to have been acquired by a fresh notification issued sometime in January 1959 for the purpose of Hindustan Steel (P) Ltd. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument. Mr. Chatterji had to concede, and he did concede fairly, that the validity of the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in the present appeal. At no point of time by any appropriate proceeding or suit, the acquisition for the public purpose was attacked or assailed. On the,other hand, the appellants asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The scope of such a reference on the facts of this case was limited to the quantum of compensation payable to them. Even though the purpose for which the lands were notified to be acquired was subsequently changed, that would not affect the law contained in Section 23 of the Act that the market value of the land has got to be determined at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The lands were acquired on the basis of the notification Exhibit Ta. The notification was not withdrawn under Section 48 of the Act. No fresh notification was issued, no procedure for acquisition of the land for the purpose of the company was followed, Therefore, for the purpose of determination of valuation it is difficult to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the appellants that the notification under Section 4 should be deemed to have been issued sometime in January, 1959 when, on the evidence in the records of this case, the original purpose was given a goby and the proceedings were carried on for acquisition of land for a changed or different purpose.