Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham and K.Sahai JJ.
Jetmull Bhojraj
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 434 of 1966 ; 435 of 1966 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 14, 1966
LAND ACQUISITION - Withdrawal from acquisition - Possession - Interest - Mala fide - Legality of withdrawal - Interpretation of Sec. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, raiyats of the lands in question, challenged the legality of the withdrawal of certain portions of the lands from acquisition by the Government under Sec. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They claimed that the Government had taken possession of the lands in 1954 under the Indian Forest Act and were, therefore, barred from withdrawing from acquisition. They also claimed interest from the date of possession and alleged mala fide on the part of the Government and the officers.
Finding of the Court:
1. The question of possession was held to be a disputed question of fact that could not be decided in a writ petition. 2. The admissions made by the parties were not conclusive and could be explained away. 3. The Government did not take possession of the lands under Sec. 16 or 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and hence the withdrawal from acquisition was not illegal. 4. The petitioners were not entitled to interest under Sec. 34 of the Act as the Government did not take possession under Sec. 16 or 17. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer did not act mala fide in giving the awards for a smaller figure after the withdrawal of some lands from acquisition. 6. The withdrawal from acquisition was not illegal as the Government did not take possession of the lands under Sec. 16 or 17 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government had taken possession of the lands in question, barring them from withdrawing from acquisition under Sec. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of possession. 3. Whether the withdrawal from acquisition was mala fide. 4. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer acted mala fide in giving the awards for a smaller figure after the withdrawal of some lands from acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The interpretation of Sec. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was that the Government loses its right to withdraw from acquisition only from the date when the Collector takes possession under Sec. 16 or 17 of the Act so that title vests free from all encumbrances in the Government. 2. The admissions made by the parties were not conclusive and could be explained away. 3. The Government did not take possession of the lands under Sec. 16 or 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and hence the withdrawal from acquisition was not illegal. 4. The petitioners were not entitled to interest under Sec. 34 of the Act as the Government did not take possession under Sec. 16 or 17. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer did not act mala fide in giving the awards for a smaller figure after the withdrawal of some lands from acquisition.
Final Decision: The applications were dismissed with costs.
Sahai, J.
1. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution relate to two land acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer of Hazaribagh Civil Writ jurisdiction Case No. 434 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1959-60, and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 435 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1959-60, both of which were disposed of by awards given by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer of Hazaribagh under Sec.11 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) on the 15th June, 1966. Both the applications have been heard together at the instance of the parties because the facts, with the exception of area and amount of compensation, are almost the same, and the points for consideration are also the same. This judgment will govern them both. Before I mention the prayers made by the petitioners. I would mention some facts in order to make them intelligible.
2. The lands in question are situated in villages Telaiya and Debipur. Forest stands on a substantial portion of those lands. Officers of the Forest Department of the Government of Bihar proposed to include them in Telaiya and Debipur protected forests. A notification under Sections 14 and 21 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 (9 of 1949) was issued on 11-6-1948. for the purpose. The authorities appear to have thought that that notification could not serve their object, and, therefore, a notification under Sec.29 of the Indian Forest Act (16 of 1927) was issued in 1953-54 in respect of the forests standing in the same lands. It appears to have then been thought that, unless the lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the purpose of the Forest Department would not be achieved.
3. Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, being No. D.L.A. Haz-46/59-3797-R., dated the 30th March, 1959, was issued in respect of 3,334.65 acres of land. Notification No. D.L.A.-Haz-46/59-5167-R., dated the 19th May, 1959, containing a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, was issued in respect of the same lands. It appears that the area was subsequently found to be only 3,311-71 acres. By notification No. D.L.A.-Haz-46/69-8173-R. dated the 12th August, 1966, issued under Sec. 48(1) of the Act, the Government withdrew from the acquisition 46.54 acres, and, to that extent, they modified declaration No. 5167, dated the 19th May, 1959. Thus, the total area under acquisition left after the issue of this notification was 3,296.17 acres. These are the lands in question in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 435 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 3.
Under the award, the total compensation of these lands has been fixed at Rs. 3,52,371.83. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 51,942.00 has been deducted on account of landlords interest in favour of the State which is the landlord, the petitioners being only raiyats. Another small amount has been deducted on account of cost of contingencies, etc., and the net amount payable to the petitioners has been fixed at Rs. 2,98,867.96 (Rupees two lacs ninety-eight thousand eight hundred sixty-seven and paise ninety-six).
4. Another notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, being notification No. D.L.A.-Haz.-64/59-3720-R., dated the 23rd March, 1959, was issued in connection with an area of 188.97 acres. Notification No. D.L.A, Haz-64/59-5168-R., dated the 19th May, 1959, containing the declaration under Sec. 6, was issued in respect of the same lands. By notification No. D.L.A.-Haz.-64/59-8174-R., dated the 12th August, 1966, issued under Sec. 48(1) of the Act, the Government withdrew from the acquisition of 177.54 acres of the lands originally notified, and, to that extent, they modified declaration No. 5168, dated the 19th May 1959, thus leaving an area of only 11.43 acres of lands under acquisition. These are the lands in question in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 434 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 4. Under the award, the total compensation has been fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
