In Dharnidhar Mishra (dead) vs. of State Bihar & Ors. (2024), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy heard the matter which came up before it on the remand made by the Supreme Court by its order dated May 13, 2024. The High Court directed the State to give the details of the acquisition and the award if any passed. Dharnidhar Mishra was survived by Panchwarti Devi, Saroj Devi, Indira Kumari, Ranjana Devi, Kanchan Devi and Sushil Kumar Mishra, the residents of Hanuman Nagar, Bharbari, Rosera, Samastipur as petitioners. Besides the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road construction Department, Government of Bihar, the other three respondents were: District Magistrate-Cum-Collector Samastipur, District Land Acquisition Officer Samastipur and Circle Officer Hasanpur, Samastipur. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, a new division bench heard the matter.
In compliance with the Supreme Court's order, the High Court's judgement dated August 29, 2024 recorded that the Advocate General conceded that no details are available with the Government. He submitted that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of State Highway. The possession has been taken and a Highway has also been constructed. The High Court observed: "In the above circumstances and also the fact that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) has come into force, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others; (2020) 8 SCC 129."
The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated January 8, 2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2019 rejecting the claim for compensation against acquisition of the land of the writ-petitioners. The writ-petitioners contended that their land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 07 of 1976. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, the Single Judge of the High Court had held that the claim was filed after 42 years of acquisition and there was no document or notification filed, in connection with the acquisition of the subject land. The writ petition was dismissed. In the appeal filed, the Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Satyavrat Verma had passed a judgement on February 7, 2023 which found on the basis of the categorical stand of the State that the subject land had been consumed and that the value of the land, as assessed by the State at Rs. 4,68,099/-, was to be paid. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, which set aside the order of the Division Bench and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Chief Justice led Division Bench which included Justice Partha Sarthy which considered the matter afresh observed: "It was found that the ground of delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court." Both the decisions by Justice Singh and Kumar of the High Court were set aside by the Supreme Court by its order dated May 13, 2024.
The new division bench of the High Court observed: "It was also found that when the land of the appellant came to be acquired, the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 31 in Part-III of the Constitution; which could not be deprived without due process of law and only upon just and fair compensation. Even when the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. It was held so in Paragraph 18, which is extracted hereinbelow:- “18. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1].”
The Court specifically referred to Paragraph 366.1 of Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others; (2020) 8 SCC 129, which reads: “366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) (a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1- 2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.”
Drawing the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others; (2020) 8 SCC 129,
the High Court observed: "In the present case, admittedly there is no
award made or rather; there is nothing produced on record to indicate an
award having been made on the acquisition. In the above circumstances,
the matter will have to be considered under Section 24(1)(a) and
compensation will have to be determined under the provisions of the Act
of 2013. 8. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 reads as under:“24(1)(a)
where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has
been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply; or”
The
High Court concluded:"In the above circumstances, the compensation
claim of the appellants will have to be considered under the Act of 2013
subject only to their establishing the title to the said land before
the appropriate authority. The District Collector, Samastipur shall
initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 within a period of one month
from today, determine the amount of compensation and if the appellants
are satisfied, it will be disbursed. Further proceedings, if the
appellants are not satisfied with the award, can also be taken under the
Act of 2013. We make it clear that we have not observed anything about
the title of the appellants which the appellants/legal heirs of the
original owner will have to establish before the competent authority."
With the above directions, the Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
The
High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Vinod Chandran. It was
uploaded on the High Court's website on September 3, 2024. District Collector, Samastipur was supposed to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 within a period of one month
from August 29, 2024. It not clear as to whether the Collector has complied with the High Court's judgement delivered in compliance with Supreme Court's order.
No comments:
Post a Comment