PATNA HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, C.J. and Anjana Mishra, J.
Sihasan Prasad and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.136 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9089 of 2014
Decided on 2.4.2019
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Sections 24(1)(a) and 26 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Acquisition of land – Just compensation – Date for determination in respect of rates applicable for payment of compensation has to be seen in respect of all Awards that have been made after 1st of January, 2014 – In cases where Awards have not been pronounced up to date (as on 31.12.2015), rates as applicable would have to be as on 01.01.2014 – This categorically excludes such Awards that have been pronounced after 01.01.2014 and prior to 31.12.2015 – In present case, Award dated 13.01.2015 falls within these two dates – Land Acquisition Officer has declined to extend benefit as applicable on 01.01.2014 on the ground that Award is prior to 31.12.2015 as if 31.12.2015 is cut-off date for consideration of applicability of rates that are available as on 01.01.2014 – This artificial creation of another cut off date by the State Government being contrary to intention of Statute and having no other statutory force with no rational nexus cannot as an executive fiat impede calculation or pronouncement of any Award contrary to provisions of 2013 Act – Impugned order quashed – Error committed by authorities in proceeding to deliver an Award contrary to Statute on strength of an executive fiat is not legally sustainable – Collector directed to initiate appropriate proceeding for modificastion of Award in accordance with rates as would be applicable with effect from 01.01.2014 in terms of provisions of Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 26 of 2013 Act. (Paras 15, 17 to 21)
Result: Letters Patent Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, C.J.—
Re: I.A. No. 717 of 2018
Heard Shri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General for the State.
2. The appeal is reported to be delayed by 1 year and 7 days.
3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time.
4. I.A. No. 717 of 2018 stands allowed accordingly.
Re: L.P.A. No. 136 of 2018
This appeal arises out of a dispute relating to acquisition of certain land that was acquired for the construction of Bihta Sarmera State Highway No. 78, the acquisition proceedings whereof were undertaken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The proceedings culminated with the issuance of the notifications, but it is the admitted case of the parties that in the present case, Award had not been declared in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as on the date when the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. It is not in dispute that the date of the enforcement of the said Act, as notified in the Gazette, is 1st of January, 2014.
3. In the present case, this is also not disputed that the Award was delivered on 13th of January, 2015.
4. The appellants filed the writ petition contending that no Award had been delivered and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefits under the 2013 Act. A further mandamus was prayed for that a direction be issued to pay compensation to the appellants in terms of the 2013 Act.
5. It appears that a counter affidavit was filed by the State which was being considered as on the date of the judgment dated 21st December, 2016, but the said counter affidavit did not contain any copy of the Award dated 13th January, 2015.
6. The learned Single Judge in these circumstances proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by issuing the following directions:-
“In the present case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, wherein the facts regarding initiation of Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2011-12 and other connected land acquisition case for acquisition of the lands in question, besides other plots of lands, have not been disputed, but it has been averred that the matter is under consideration for fixing the amount of compensation by applying the provisions of the Act, 2013. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit, the copy of award, if prepared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, has not been brought on the record. If the award has not been prepared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, then under the mandate of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, the Collector under the Act is obliged to apply the provisions of the Act, 2013 for determination of compensation payable to the land owners/interested persons.
In above view of the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no. 5-the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, with a fresh comprehensive representation and all other relevant documents in support of their claims over the lands in question within a period of one month from today and, whereafter, the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna shall consider their claims expeditiously and shall determine the amount of compensation payable to the interested persons/land owners by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, 2013, since admittedly, final award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has not been prepared till date.
The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.”
7. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, an order came to be passed on 14th of November, 2017 which has been signed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna and the Additional District Land Acq
Pune Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others
Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.