Meira Kumar vs State of Bihar - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 1145

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.13918 of 2014
(21.12.2023)
Mrs. Meira Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Jai Vardhan Narayan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh,G.A.-3.

Headnote:
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 4(h) – Denial of Compensation – Land in question transferred to petitioner's mother in year 1965 – Mother of petitioner came in physical possession of land and her name was mutated in Register-II and Jamabandi was also created – Collector annulled Jamabandi just for purpose of disturbing actual physical possession over land in question – Order of Collector cancelling quashed by Court – Contention that compensation has been paid to all awardees well within 5 years but petitioner is not entitled for it in the new act of 2013 – If Jamabandi had been wrongly created and has existed and on that basis, person has been in possession for over 50 years then under Section 4(h) , Collector can neither cancel the Jamabandi nor order his eviction – Three Men Committee stated that land in question had been settled prior to 01.01.1946, cannot initiate proceeding under Section 4(h) – Section 4(h) is not at all attracted in the present case since settlement of land in question by erstwhile landlord is of year 1941 and this fact has also been duly certified and establishment by report of Three Men Committee – Petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation under the new Act of 2013 as expression "paid" in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 does not include deposit of compensation in court – Consequence of non-deposit as on date of notification for land acquisition is land holder shall be entitled for compensation – Non-deposit of compensation in Court does not result in lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Writ petition allowed – Petitioner should be paid compensation. (Paras 14, 16, 18 & 19)

Sandeep Kumar, J. – The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for payment of compensation amount as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (for short “new Act of 2013”) for the land situated at Mauja-Mainpura, Khata No.769, Plot No.1220, Thana - Phulwari, P.S.-Shashtri Nagar, District- Patna area 18 Khattas and 10 dhurs, which has been acquired by the State Government vide Land Acquisition Case No.50 of 1975-76 in the year 1976 for construction of nala and road in the year of 1976 itself as all the constructions have been made but till date no compensation has been given either to the mother of the petitioner, who died on 14.04.2002 or to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that ex-landlord settled the land in question along with other lands in the year 1941 to one Sri Gauri Charan Singh, whose name was also recorded in Register-II and subsequently the mutation was done. On his death, his two sons namely Raj Nath Singh and Deena Nath Singh came in actual physical possession of the land in question and their names were also recorded in the Register-II and mutation was done for the same. Later on, they transferred the land in question to one Satyadeo Prasad after executing a registered sale deed in favour of him on 20.02.1963. Therefore, the name of Satyadeo Prasad was also mutated and entries were made in Register-II in the year 1965. Subsequently, said Satyadeo Prasad sold the land to Smt. Indrani Devi, mother of the present petitioner by executing a registered sale deed for total area measuring 4.5 Bighas of land. Accordingly, the name of the mother of the petitioner was also mutated in Register-II of the Patna Sadar Anchal and Jamabandi No.1789 was created. Since then she has been paying rent to the State of Bihar.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 07.05.1985, the then Collector, Patna cancelled the Jamabandi of Smt. Indrani Devi and 14 other persons in an off suit proceeding of Land Acquisition Case No.50/1975-76 bearing RM Case no. 06/1982-83 on the ground that the land in question have been recorded as “gair mazarua aam” in the khatiyan and records of the Government. The order of cancellation of Jamabandi was challenged by Smt. Indrani Devi (mother of the petitioner) in C.W.J.C No. 4071 of 1986. This Court vide order dated 18.11.1994 allowed the writ petition and cancelled the order of the Collector, by which Jamabandi created in the name of Smt Indrani Devi was cancelled on the ground that long standing Jamabandi can only be cancelled after initiation of a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The aforesaid order dated 18.11.1994 has not been challenged till date. In pursuance of aforesaid order dated 18.11.1994, the Jamabandi of all the affected persons were restored and rent receipt were issued in their names.

4. After the death of Smt. Indrani Devi, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the leftover lands on the basis of Registered Will executed by Smt. Indrani Devi and rent receipts were also issued in her name. However, on 02.02.2013, the D.C.L.R., Patna Sada issued a Notice under section 4(h) of the Act to the petitioner and other persons mentioning therein that the proceeding vide Jamabandi Case No.01 of 2011-12 has been initiated in the Office of Circle Circle Officer, Patna Sadar. One Raj Thakur, Power of Attorney Holder of Harendra Kumar, had filed a contempt petition viz. M.J.C. No.994 of 2023 before this Court challenging the initiation of proceeding under Section 49(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. In the said contempt petition, this Court directed the State Government to file its show-cause but instead of filing a show-cause, the Collector, Patna, cancelled the Jamabandi of said Harendra Kumar. This Court vide order 27.11.2013 directed the Collector, Patna, to file a show-cause as to why he be not held guilty of contempt of Court for violating the