Babulal Singh, Kailesh Prasad Singh and Jitendra Prasad Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—In both these writ petitions, order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh in Case No. 01/02-03 has been challenged by these petitioners. By the said order, the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had rejected their objection petition filed u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereunder they have made a claim for apportionment of the compensation to their share also as they were claiming ownership of the said land alongwith the private respondents. They had also sought stay of disbursement of the compensation on account of the pendency of the Partition Suit being Partition Suit No. 27 of 2001 pending in the Court of learned Sub Judge-1, Giridih between the petitioners and the private respondents and other parties/co-sharer as well. On rejection of such application, these petitioners have preferred these writ petitions in the year 2005. It transpires that during course of proceeding, the private respondents were noticed and appeared also. Statements were made in the earlier supplementary counter affidavit that an Award under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act has been prepared and the money has been disbursed to the land losers, but neither a copy of award was brought on record nor the statutory legal notice, as required to be served u/s 12(2) of the said Act upon all interested persons, were also brought on record.

On repeated indulgence granted to the respondent-State by way of supplementary counter affidavit filed on 22.01.2013, the notices issued u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have been brought on record. These notices, however, appear to have been issued to some of the claimants in whose favour compensation was awarded. However these notices u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been issued to the present petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, claim to be in total darkness about the subsequent event of publication of the Award and issuance of notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Their grievances are that though they are ''interested persons'' within the definition of the interested person u/s 3(b) of the LA Act being co-parceners and co-sharers litigating in a Partition Suit where the private respondents are also parties, but they have been denied the opportunity to seek reference on the question of apportionment of compensation by issuing the notice u/s 12(2) upon them in order to enable them to make an objection to the award of such compensation after publication of the award. Now statutory notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act, issued in the name of the some of the awardees, has been brought on record, who are some of the private respondents.

In these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as the Collector should have awaited for the outcome of the partition suit between the parties before awarding compensation in favour of one of the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties including the State and the private respondents. Though, the writ petitioners have approached this Court against the order refusing their objections filed u/s 9 of the LA Act in the year 2005, but during the pendency of the instant writ petitions subsequent events have transpired as per the submission made on behalf of the State-respondents and also not disputed by the private respondents. The Award has been published u/s 11 of the LA Act and the amount of compensation has also been disbursed to some of the persons including the private respondents in respect of compensation of the same property. However, these petitioners, who are interested persons, have not been issued notice u/s 12(2) of the LA Act of 1894 though they had seriously objected to the apportionment of the award amongst the parties on their claim of being co-parceners and co-sharers of the property in question. The Partition Suit No. 27 of 2001 pending before the Court of learned Sub-Judge-1, Giridih is enough evidence to show that these petitioners were also interested persons. In these circumstances, taking regard to the subsequent event under which the award has already been published, the petitioners at this stage can take resort to statutory remedy available u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for apportionment of the Award, which has been disbursed in favour of the some of the persons including private respondents, to establish their right before the competent court. Since, the petitioners were completely in dark before these notices issued u/s 12(2), were brought on record by way of the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-State, therefore, these petitioners cannot be accused of deliberate delay or latches on their part in filing their objection/application before the Collector for making such a reference.

In that view of matter, these writ petitions are being disposed of by allowing the petitioners to approach the Collector, declared under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of acquisition in question where they may file their objection petition within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such objection petitions, the Collector shall make a reference to the Competent Court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Competent Court, thereafter shall proceed to decide the issues raised in the reference in accordance with law after hearing all the affected parties. These writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.