MOTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant/land lord against the Judgment dated 29.03.2005, passed by Special Judge, Land Acquisition in connection with L.A. Reference Case No. 02/2002 whereby the application filed by the appellant for grant of adequate compensation against acquisition of land was rejected. The facts in brief is that the land pertaining to Khata No. 1, Plot No. 97, area measuring 1.95 Acres, situated at Mauza -Yadutand, P.S. -Koderma, Thana No. 5, belonging to the appellant was acquired vide Case No. 84/2000 -01 vide Declaration No. 1295, dated 05.09.2002 and the declaration published at Page -3, Part -II of the District Gazette of 23.11.2002 for the purposes of constructing Railway Track from Kodrma to Ranchi via Hazaribagh -Barkakana. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, objection was raised and the reference under Section 18 was made to the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma by the District Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) IT is contended that the learned Special Judge has dismissed the claim of the appellant on hyper technical ground that no objection under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was raised within time and therefore, the application is barred under Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is pointed out that there is no Sub Clause (2) to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act and how the learned Special Judge has referred Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, is unknown to the appellant.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned Judgment and I do not find that the court below has considered this issue as to when notice under Section 9 was published by the respondent; when they have failed to prove the publication of the notice under Section 9, question of raising objection under Section 9(2) does not arise. Further more, stage of raising objection under Section 18 comes after compliance with Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no Sub Clause (2) of Section 25 in the Land Acquisition Act and I also fail to understand as to from where this Sub Section was quoted by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition. I agree with the submission that the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition has dismissed the claim mainly on hyper technical ground which is not proper and just in a case of Legislation enacted for the poor villagers who used to become landless and to face hardship after acquisition of their land. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 29.03.2005, passed by Special Judge, Land Acquisition in connection with L.A. Reference Case No. 02/2002 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Koderma to decide the issue afresh and pass appropriate Judgment in accordance with law after giving opportunities to the parties to adduce their evidence.