Bhupal Singh And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2246 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.199 of 2018
     ======================================================

1. Bhupal Singh S/o late Harihar Mahto 2.1. Arjun Kumar @ Arjun Kumar Singh Son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad, resident of Village-Dhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

2.2. Madhav Singh Son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad, resident of Village- Dhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 2.3. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad, resident of Village- Dhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 2.4. Ashish Verma @ Dhiraj Kumar, son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad, resident of Village-Dhanpurwa, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 2.5. Avinash Kumar, son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad resident of Village-Dhanpurwa, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 2.6. Saket Kumar @ Chandan Kumar, Son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh @ Kalika Prasad, resident of Village- Dhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

3. Satyanarayan Singh S/o Bhairo Singh

4. Ramjee Singh S/o late Agnu Singh

5. Shivnarayan Singh S/o late Agnu Singh

6. Virendra Singh S/o Raghubansh Prasad Singh

7. Baikunth Singh S/o late Ramdhari Singh

8. Hira Singh Yadav S/o late Budhu Singh Yadav Petitioner no. 6 to 8 are resident of village- Diliyan, P.O. - Sasaram, P.S.- SasaramM, Distt.- RohtasBihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India

2. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

4. The Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram.

5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas Sasaram.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh No-10, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP18 Mr. Mukul Prasad, A.C to G.P.18 Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

Date : 10-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel

for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

('DFCCIL' in short) and learned counsel for the State of Bihar.

The petitioners have filed the instant application for the

following reliefs:

"(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions commanding upon the respondents authorities, to pay the compensation as per provisions of Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 (In brief "Act") for the lands acquired by Indian Railway for the execution, maintenance management and operation of special Railway Project Eastern dedicated freight corridor in the district of Rohtas and earlier land acquisition proceeding has lapsed and petitioners are in possession of the land and nothing has been paid to them.

(b) To pass any such other order or order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

The case of the petitioners in brief is that the Ministry of

Railways came out with a notification dated 17.8.2010

(Annexure-1) for acquiring land for the Special Railway Project

Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor in the district of Rohtas. An

award at the rate of Rs. 5700/- per decimal was prepared on

19.5.2012 by the District Land Acquisition Officer ('DLAO' in Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

short), Rohtas. Objections were filed by the petitioners. By

order dated 9.4.2013, the Commissioner, Patna Division

enhanced the rate from Rs.5700/- per decimal to Rs.17,920/- per

decimal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the

meantime the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

( 'Act of 2013' in short) came into force on 27.9.2013.

The order dated 9.4.2013 of the Commissioner, Patna

Division was challenged by the DFCCIL under section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' in

short) in the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram

and the same was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.39 of 2013.

The said case was dismissed by order dated 18.6.2018.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

neither the possession of the land acquired having been taken by

the respondents nor the amount of compensation having been

paid, the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation as

per the Act of 2013. Learned counsel refers to the letter dated

25.5.2015 of the General Manager, DFCCIL written to the Chief

Project Managers, EDFC and WDFC brought on record as

annexure to the second supplementary counter affidavit of Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

DFCCIL to submit that from perusal of the same it would

clearly transpire that the entitlement matrix approved by the

Railway Board is in accordance with the new Act of 2013.

Learned counsel for the DFCCIL submits that pursuant to

notification under section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989

published on 24.8.2009, notice under section 20E of the Act was

published on 17.8.2010 and as prescribed the award was

prepared on 16.6.2011 i.e. within the time prescribed. Not being

satisfied with the award, the petitioners went before the

Arbitrator under section 20F(6) of the Railways Act, however,

the Arbitrator by his order dated 19.5.2012 confirmed the award

of the DLAO. A review petition was filed by some persons

before the Arbitrator which was allowed by order dated

9.4.2013. On the same being allowed, the rectified award was

published on 10.5.2013.

It is further case of the respondents that the DFCCIL

preferred Civil Misc. Case No.39 of 2013 before the Principal

Civil Court which upheld the rectified award of the Arbitrator

by its order dated 18.6.2018. This order of the Principal Civil

Court was accepted by the DFCCIL and no appeal has been

preferred against the same.

Learned counsel for the DFCCIL submits that so far as Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned,

the same is specifically barred under section 20-N of the

Railways Act. Further reading of section 105 of the Act of 2013

together with the 4th schedule it would transpire that the

provisions of Act of 2013 will not apply to the Railways Act.

However, learned counsel for the Railways in reference to the

letter dated 25.5.2013 of the GM, DFCCIL with respect to the

entitlement matrix having been adopted in accordance with the

Act of 2013 submits that clause 2.0 thereof provides that the

entitlement matrix shall be applicable for awards (20F) declared

after 1.1.2015. So far as the instant case is concerned the award

was prepared on 16.6.2011 and even the rectified award was

prepared on 10.5.2013.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the DFCCIL.

It may be stated here that the fact one gathers from the

materials on record is to the effect that the land of the petitioners

and others were acquired in first phase of acquisition for which

a declaration under section 20E was published in the gazette on

17.8.2010, the compensation was determined and the award was

prepared on 16.6.2011. Not being satisfied with the award, the

petitioners moved under section 20F(6) of the Act before the Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

Arbitrator who although had confirmed the award of the DLAO,

but on review petition being filed, the same was allowed by

order dated 9.4.2013.

It further transpires that on the review petition being

allowed by the Arbitrator, the rectified award was published on

10.5.2013.

Section 105 of the Act of 2013 provides that the

provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating

to land acquisition specified in the 4th Schedule which also

includes the Railways Act, 1989 at clause 13. The provisions of

the Act of 2013 would not apply to the Railways Act, 1989,

however, from perusal of the letter dated 25.5.2015 of the GM,

DFCCIL as also the letter dated 23.5.2015 of the Director,

Planning (Special), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways it

would transpire that the Railway Board has taken the decision to

fix the entitlement matrix for the DFC project in accordance

with the Act of 2013. However, at the same time it would be

relevant to note that clause 2.0 of the letter dated 25.5.2015

categorically provides that this entitlement matrix for DFC

project in accordance with the Act of 2013 shall be applicable

for awards declared after 1.1.2015.

So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned, while Patna High Court CWJC No.199 of 2018 dt.10-05-2023

the award was prepared for the first time on 16.6.2011,

subsequently on the review petition having been allowed by the

Arbitrator, even the rectified award was published on 10.5.2013.

Thus both the award as also the rectified award were prior to

1.1.2015 and as such in the opinion of the Court, even the

decision of the Railway Board that the entitlement matrix for

DFC Project will be in accordance with the new Act of 2013

will not be any assistance to the Court herein.

In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the writ

application and the same is dismissed.

                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          12.05.2023
Transmission Date