GHANSHYAM TIWARI Vs. SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Lands of Plot Nos. 2232. 2239 and 2274 situated in Bokaro were acquired by State Government for the purpose of irrigation projects. Appellant along with others claimed his exclusive title over those lands and prayed for awarding compensation therefor to him, which was objected to by respondents, in whose name award was already prepared. The Collector under Land Acquisition Act referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro, for adjudication, under Section 30 of the Act. It was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 1983 and by judgment dated 11.8.1994. it was held that appellant and others failed to establish their right, title and possession over the lands acquired, whereas respondents were the legal heirs of recorded tenant and were also in possession of those lands. So appellants claim in respect of Award Nos. 1 and 3 were rejected. Appellant along with others filed Land Acquisition Appeal No. 59 of 1994 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before District Judge, Bokaro at Chas. which, by order dated - 21.7.2000 has been dismissed, as not maintainable with a liberty to them to prefer an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before this Court.

(2.) IT appears that appellant and others had filed application both under Sections 30 as well as 18 of the Act. but claim of enhancement of compensation amount could have been entertained only after it was decided that they had interest in the acquired lands. Here interest, if any, of appellant in the lands. In question itself was negatived, I further find that Collector under the Act has also made reference only under Section 30 of the Act. So, in my opinion, against the judgment dated 11.8.1994 passed by Land Acquisition Judge. Bokaro. in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 1983. appeal under Section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure was very well maintainable. The said judgment was passed in the proceeding under Section 30 of the Act. The learned First Additional District Judge was. therefore, not justified in holding the appeal to be not maintainable. The said judgment dated 11.8.1994 was not appealable under Section 54.

(3.) APPEAL disposed of.