Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Bhushan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 159 of 2020
1. Bharat Bhushan Singh, aged about -81 years, S/o- Late Adya Prasad
Singh
2. Smt. Saroj @ Smt. Saroj Kuer, aged about -63, W/o- Martand Pratap
Singh.
3. Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh, aged about - 40 years, S/o- Late
Martand Pratap Singh.
4. Miss Priyanka Kumari, aged about 35 years, D/o- Late Martand Pratap
Singh
All Resident of Village- Bisunpur, P.S.- Chatapur, P.O- Bisunpur, Dist-
Palamu Medni Nagar (Daltonganj), presently residing at Village- Bara (Near
Rajmata Compound), P.O + PS.- Chattapur, Dist- Palamu
......Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Collector of District Palamu/Deputy Commissioner, Dist- Palamu at
Daltonganj.
4. The Additional Collector (L.C.), P.O + P.S.- Palamu, Dist- Palamu,
Daltonganj. ... Respondents
---------------
For the Appellants : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I
: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I
---------------
ORDER
Dated: 12th October 2023
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
I.A. No. 7251 of 2023
The appellants have filed this interlocutory application under
section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 331 days
in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. There is no opposition by the respondents to this application.
3. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application,
the delay of 331 days in filing this Appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. No. 7251 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.
LPA No. 159 of 2020
5. Challenging the order dated 31st January 2020 passed in WP(C)
No.2621 of 2014, the writ petitioners have filed the present Letters
Patent Appeal to challenge the denial of interest over the amount of
compensation payable to them.
6. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The appellants pleaded
that in Land Ceiling Case No. LC-1 (CHH) 73-74 the Court of
Additional Collector (LC) passed an order on 30th December 1983 which
was affirmed in appeal by the Collector of the District of Palamu. It
appears that Martand Pratap Singh filed a revision vide Case No.145 of
1985 which was also dismissed by the Member of the Board of Revenue
at Patna by an order dated 26th March 1990. The proceeding before the
revenue authorities having thus attained finality, an exercise for
computation of compensation under section 23 of the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,
1961 (in short 'Ceiling Act') had started. The Collector of the district
published a draft computation on 23rd May 2008 and certain objections
were raised. The surplus lands belonging to the appellants by virtue of
order dated 30th December 1983 passed by the Additional Collector were
taken over by the State of Bihar but compensation was not paid to them.
Therefore, the appellants came to this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2621
of 2014 with a prayer for payment of compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,13,62,900/- on account of acquisition of 115.82 acres of land
belonging to them and for payment of interest thereon @ 18%.
7. As is apparent from the materials on record that for long six
years compensation to the appellants was not paid and, therefore,
constrained, they approached the writ Court with the following prayers:
"(A) A writ of mandmous or any other appropriate writ be
issued to the respondents to pay the compensation amount by an
award prepared under Sec.23 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation
of Ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) Act 1961, (Bihar
Act XII of 1962 here-in-after the Ceiling Act) in land ceiling case
no L.C.1 (CH) 73-74 State vs. Martand Pratap Singh & Ors. by
Collector of the Distt. Palamu and ultimately finalized for payment
of Rs.1,13,62,900/- only (One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Only) after acquisition of 115.82 acres of
land vide Annex - 5 out of total as land holder about it but has not
since paid the said amount up till now to the petitioners.
(B) The land holder petitioners pray for payment of interest
on the same finalized award for payment of the specific amount @
18% or as permissible under law for non-payment due to the
culpable negligence of the State official respondents.
(C) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners be
entitled may be granted."
8. This is not disputed by the appellants that compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,13,62,900/- was paid to them on 03rd February 2019. In the
order dated 09th August 2019, the writ Court referred to brief facts of the
case and details of the legal heirs and successors who were entitled for
compensation. It further appears that the payment of compensation to
them on 03rd February 2019 was not disputed before the writ Court.
However, by filing an affidavit the present appellants raised a plea that
on expiry of 30 days if no objection is received the draft publication of
the compensation assessment shall become final and while so the State
was liable to pay compensation in terms of Interest Act, 1978. Taking
note of the said affidavit, the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned
for 23rd August 2019. In the meantime, the appellants filed I.A. No.8056
of 2019 on 26th August 2019 seeking payment of interest for the period
of about 10½ years after final publication of the compensation
assessment roll on 03rd February 2019.
9. The writ Court held that the payment of compensation on 03rd
February 2019 satisfies the requirement in law and the State was not
liable to pay interest over the compensation amount.
10. The writ Court held, thus:
"8. A bare perusal of the provisions shows the various steps prescribed
there under from the stage of publication of draft compensation roll
till the final publication of compensation assessment roll under sub
section (5), (6) and corrections of bona fide mistakes under sub
section (9). While there is a prescription of 30 days for a person to file
objection to the draft compensation assessment roll published under
Section 23(2), conspicuously the succeeding provisions under sub
section (5) and sub section (6) do not contemplate any mandatory time
limit for the Collector to publish final assessment roll in the prescribed
manner. It is evident from the reading of sub section (4) that each such
objection made under sub section (2) has to be dealt with after giving
the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing
evidence by passing a reasoned order. Sub section 6 provided
hierarchy of appeal or revision against such order. It also imposes an
obligation upon the Collector to make such alteration in the draft
compensation assessment roll as may be necessary to give effect to
any order made in regard to the objection and shall cause the draft so
altered to be finally published in the prescribed manner. The preceding
sub section (5) stipulates that in case no objection is preferred within
the period specified in sub section (2), the Collector shall cause the
draft compensation assessment roll to be finally published in the
prescribed manner.
9. It is the categorical case of the respondents that the Deputy
Commissioner, Palamau verified the relevant records regarding the
draft compensation assessment roll in connection with the instant land
ceiling case and after reviewing the objections, incorporating and
correcting the raised figure, finally concluded and published final
compensation assessment roll prepared under section 23(5)(6) of the
Act of 1961 on 03.02.2019. Soon after this, notices along with copy of
the final compensation assessment roll published on 03.02.2019 were
issued upon the writ petitioners and coparceners for account details
verification. Pursuant thereto they turned up and submitted their bank
accounts and family genealogical table and thereafter it was verified
by the local Circle Officer. After due verification and compliance,
finally treasury bills were presented in the District Treasury, Palamau
for Rs.1,13,62,900/- dated 11.03.2019. It is the stand of the respondent
State that after publication of the final compensation assessment roll
on 03.02.2019, compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners
and co-parceners (all four persons) on 26.03.2019 itself. In terms of
Section 26 of the Act of 1961, payment of compensation to the land
holders or other persons entitled there to in accordance with the
provisions of this Act or of the rules made there under shall be full
discharge by the State Government from all liability to pay
compensation for the acquisition of the surplus land and no further
claim for payment of compensation in respect thereof on any ground
whatsoever, shall lie.
10. Considered in this light, this Court is of the view that petitioners
have been paid the compensation amount within a period of 1 ½
months from the publication of the final compensation assessment roll
on 03.02.2019. The plea now being raised by the petitioners to treat
the date of publication of draft compensation assessment roll as final
is not in consonance of the provisions of the act of 1961, and rather
appears to be an afterthought at the fag end of the proceedings. Such a
prayer for amendment cannot be allowed. As such, claim of interest
over the compensation amount is not tenable in law or on facts. The
admissible compensation amount has already been paid, no further lis
survives in the matter.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. I.A. No. 8056 of 2019
is rejected. Other pending I.A. is closed."
11. The above findings of the writ Court are under challenge in the
present Letters Patent Appeal primarily on the ground that delay of more
than 10 years cannot be a reasonable period under clause (i) of sub-
section 2 to section 23 for the final publication of the compensation
assessment roll, on 03rd February 2019.
12. Section 23 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 reads as under:
"23. Determination of compensation for land acquired by the State
Government.- (1)Every person whose right, title or interest in any
land is acquired or deemed to be acquired by the State Government
under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid compensation
according to the rate specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Collector shall, after he has determined the amount of
compensation in accordance with the rate specified in the Schedule,
prepare a compensation assessment-roll in the prescribed manner and
shall:-
(i) cause it to be published in the prescribed manner for the
prescribed period which shall not be less than thirty days, a draft
of such roll together with, a public notice stating that the amount
of compensation specified therein is the entire amount of
compensation payable for all interests in the land and that subject
to other provisions of this Act, the persons named therein are the
only persons who are entitled thereto in the proportion stated
therein and that objection, if any, in respect of any entry in the
draft may, be filed by any person within thirty days of the expiry
of the said prescribed period; and(ii) send by registered post, with
acknowledgement due, a copy of the draft together with a copy of
the notice to the persons whose names appear in the draft.
(3) Separate draft compensation assessment rolls shall be prepared
and published under sub-section (2) for different land-holders:
Provided that it shall not be obligatory on the Collector to
prepared a separate draft compensation assessment-roll for different
members of an undivided Hindu family.
(4) The Collector shall consider any objection which may be
preferred under sub-section (2) and after giving the parties a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, pass
such order as he thinks fit and record the reason therefore.
(5) If no objection is preferred within the period specified in sub-
section (2), the Collector shall cause the draft compensation
assessment-roll to be finally published in the prescribed manner.
(6) When such objection or an appeal or revision, if any, in regard
thereto has been disposed of, the Collector shall make such alteration
in the draft compensation assessment -roll as may be necessary to
give effect to any order made in regard to the objection and shall
cause the draft so altered to be finally published in the prescribed
manner.
(7) Every entry in the compensation assessment-roll finally published
under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) shall, except as provided
under this Act, be final and conclusive evidence-
(a) of the matter referred to therein;
(b) of the nature of the interest of the persons named therein; and
(c) of the apportionment of the compensation among the persons
claiming interest therein.
(8) When a compensation assessment-roll has been finally published
under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), the Collector shall within
such time as may be prescribed endorse a certificate thereon, stating
the date of the final publication thereof and shall date and subscribe
the same with his name and official designation and such certificate
shall be a conclusive proof of such publication and the date of such
publication.
(9) The Collector may, if he is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has
been made in regard to any entry in the finally published
compensation assessment roll, make necessary corrections therein and
on such corrections being made the provisions of sub-sections (2),
(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) shall apply thereto."
13. Section 23 of the Ceiling Act provides that every person shall
be paid compensation whose right, title or interest in any land is
acquired or deemed to be acquired by the State Government under the
provisions of the Act, according to the rate specified in the schedule.
Sub-section 2 provides that after determining the amount of
compensation in terms of the rates specified in the schedule the
Collector shall prepare a compensation assessment roll in the prescribed
manner and shall cause it to be published in the prescribed manner for
the prescribed period (i) which shall not be less than 30 days and (ii) the
objection therewith must be filed within 30 days of the expiry of the said
prescribed period. The learned counsel for the appellants refers to
sub-section 5 to section 23 to submit that if no objection is preferred
within the period specified in sub-section 2 the Collector shall cause the
draft compensation assessment roll to be finally published in the
prescribed manner. However, we would accord our concurrence to the
submission made by the learned Advocate General that the prescribed
period for publication may in some cases be more than 30 days. The
provisions of section 23, which refer to endorsement on a certificate
stating the date of final publication and correction of bonafide mistake in
regard to any entry in the finally published compensation assessment
roll, provide sufficient indications that there may be cases in which
publication of compensation assessment roll may be delayed for a
justifiable reason.
14. In our opinion, the provisions under section 23 of the Ceiling
Act are plain, simple and very clear. In fact, there is no explanation on
record why the appellants approached the writ Court after 6 years. But
what is missing in the case pleaded by the appellants is that there are no
specific averments in the pleadings by the appellants to claim interest @
18% per annum. Notwithstanding that, what remains admitted by the
State of Jharkhand is that between 2009 to early 2018 the post of
Additional Collector (LC) remained vacant and that was the reason the
final publication of the compensation assessment roll could not be made.
There is no specific provision under the Ceiling Act for payment of
interest over delayed publication of final compensation assessment roll
but this is the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
writ Court can grant compensation in appropriate cases.
15. The writ Court exercises plenary jurisdiction and the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised in public
interest and for public good. There is also no doubt that in exercise of
the equitable jurisdiction of the writ Court the aggrieved party may be
suitably compensated. No doubt the equitable jurisdiction cannot be
exercised in the face of an express statutory bar in law and there is no
express prohibition in the Ceiling Act for grant of interest on the delayed
final publication of assessment roll. Having regard to the admitted facts
in the case, we are of the opinion that the writ Court did not consider
that vacancy on the post of Additional Collector (LC) cannot be a
reasonable cause to justify delayed final publication of assessment roll
and, therefore, the appellants who were deprived of enjoying the
compensation money for about a decade are entitled for compensation
for that period.
16. Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the
appellants has referred to the following judgments to lay support to the
claim of the appellants for payment of interest @ 18% per annum:
(i) "Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others"
2013 (1) PLJR 289 (SC)
(ii) "Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and
others Vs. G.C. Roy" AIR 1992 SC 732
(iii) "Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Globe Hi-Fabs
Limited" (2015) 5 SCC 718
(iv) "Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Videocon
Industries Ltd." passed in Civil Appeal No. 5437 of 2022.
17. In the first place, the law applicable in arbitration proceedings
cannot be made applicable in the writ proceedings in which a claim by
way of interest was seriously agitated by filing I.A No. 8056 of 2019 in
W.P.(C) No. 2621 of 2014, only after payment of compensation for the
surplus lands. Furthermore, the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 can
also not be applied in the present case as the power of the Court to allow
interest can be exercised in a proceeding for recovery of debt or
damages or for interest over the debt or damages already paid. The writ
Court in the matters of this nature can exercise powers akin to section 34
of the Code of Civil Procedure which uses the expression 'reasonable'.
We have the aforesaid principles in our mind while deciding that the
State should pay interest @ 6% simple on the amount of
Rs.1,13,62,900/- for nine years over the period between 2009 to 2017,
within eight weeks.
18. Notice dated 18th September 2023 stands discharged.
19. LPA No. 159 of 2020 is allowed, in the above terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Pankaj-
