Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 May, 2024
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1214 of 2017
======================================================
Prakash Kumar Jha son of Late Banmali Jha Resident of Village - Hridayganj,
P.O. - Katihar Civil Court Campus, P.S. Sahayak, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jibendra Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and I intend to dispose
of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
02. The present petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated
02.06.2017
passed by the learned Sub Judge-I-cum-L.A. Judge,
Katihar in Land Acquisition Execution Case No. 01 of 2011,
whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the
petitioner/decree-holder claiming an amount of Rs. 1,25,989/-
has been rejected.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
L.A. Case No. 06 of 1988, the petitioner, who was the plaintiff,
was allowed compensation of Rs. 13,04,333/- with interest at the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
rate of 15% per annum till the date of realization of the amount
in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter execution case No. 01 of
2011 was filed for execution of the decree of LA Case No. 06 of
1988. In the said case, a cheque bearing no. 1109808958 for an
amount of Rs. 9,64,076/- was issued by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Koshi, Saharsa in the name of learned Sub
Judge-I, Katihar and same was deposited in the court. The
learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar directed the petitioner/decree-
holder to furnish his bank account details and the said amount
was transferred to the account of decree-holder through chalan.
After that the balance amount was paid through another cheque
bearing no. 0150299 to the tune of Rs. 3,00,400/-, which was
again issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa in
the name of learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar and the same was
deposited in the court of learned Sub Judge-cum-L.A. Judge,
Katihar on 01.11.2012. However, this time the said cheque was
handed over to the petitioner, but the said cheque could not be
encashed by the petitioner as the same was in the name of Sub
Judge-I, Katihar. In these circumstances, the said cheque was
returned to the court of Sub Judge-I, Katihar by the petitioner
and on orders of the learned executing court, Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Saharsa issued a fresh cheque in favour of
the petitioner/decree-holder vide cheque no. 069354 for an
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
amount of Rs. 3,00,400/- which was duly credited in the account
of the petitioner on 16.11.2013. In these circumstances, the
petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 1,25,898/- as interest for the
delayed payment of his compensation amount in terms of the
judgment and decree dated 12.08.2009 passed in LA Case No.
06 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in LA
Execution Case No. 01 of 2011 for payment of the said amount
of Rs. 1,25,898/- on 08.04.2016 claiming interest on non-
payment amount at the rate of 15% from 01.03.2012 to
16.11.2013. A rejoinder to said application was filed and the
learned Executing Court after hearing the parties rejected the
claim of the petitioner as made in the petition dated 08.04.2016.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned trial court committed error in holding that delay in
payment was due to laches on the part of the petitioner but the
said fact is not correct and it is an error of record. The said
cheque no. 069354 for Rs. 3,00,400/- was issued in the name of
learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar and for this reason the said cheque
could not be encashed by the petitioner and which was returned
to respondent no. 2 for issuance of the same in the name of
petitioner. Therefore, the delay was caused due to action of the
respondent no. 2 in not issuing the cheque in the name of the
petitioner. The learned executing court has held that earlier a
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
cheque was also issued in the name of learned Sub Judge-I,
Katihar but the same was encashed by the petitioner, so the
petitoner has wrongly claimed that as the cheque ws issued in
the name of learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar, the same would not be
encashed. But the learned executing court has not considered the
fact that though the cheque for an amount of Rs. 9,64,076/- was
issued in the name of learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar but the same
was deposited in the court and the said amount was transferred
to the account of decree-holder through chalan for which the
bank account details of the petitioner was sought by the court
itself. Therefore, the reasoning of the learned executing court
that earlier cheque was issued in the name of learned Sub Judge-
I, Katihar and same was encashed by the petitioner is not correct.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court itself
adopted two methods for payment in dealing with two cheques.
In the first cheque, the amount of was deposited in the account
of petitioner through chalan, whereas for the second cheque, it
was straightway handed over to the petitioner, which could not
be credited in the account of the petitioner as the same was
issued in the name of learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar. Learned
counsel further submits that there is no delay or laches on the
part of the petitioner, who accepted the second cheque as soon as
it was deposed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
to the court of learned Sub Judge-I, Katihar as the said cheque
was deposited on 06.11.2013 and the same was received by the
petitioner only on next date, i.e., on 07.11.2013, so there is no
delay on the part of the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel
submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same
be set aside and respondent authority be asked to make the
payment of interest amount to the petitioner, which the petitioner
is rightfully entitled.
05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State vehemently contends that there is no merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
authority timely issued the cheque. Out of the total decreetal
amount of Rs. 13,04,333/-, a cheque for an amount of Rs.
9,64,076/- was issued and was duly deposited in the account of
the petitioner. The State authority again deposited Rs. 3,00,400/-
vide cheque no. 0150299 dated 31.10.2012. Learned counsel
further submits that the said cheque was no encashed within time
due to fault and laches on the part of the decree-
holder/petitioner. However, the learned Sub Judge-I-cum-L.A.
Judge, Katihar, directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Koshi, Saharsa for issuance of fresh cheque vide letter no. 70
dated 07.09.2013. The directions were complied and Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi, Saharsa issued another cheque
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
bearing cheque no. 069354 dated 29.10.2013 for Rs. 3,00,400/-
which was duly received and encashed by the decree-
holder/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is
no delay or laches on the part of the State authorities rather it is
on the part of the petitioner.
06. Having regarding to the submission made on
behalf of the parties and also taking into consideration the
material available on record, I think the learned Sub Judge-I-
cum-L.A. Judge, Katihar erred when he made an observation
that the cheque for amount of Rs. 9,64,076/- was though in the
name of learned Sub Judge itself was encashed and deposited by
the petitioner. The petitioner has explained the circumstances
under which the said cheque was credited in his account. There
is no dispute on the fact that the amount of said cheque was
deposited in the account of decree-holder/petitioner through
chalan in his account on orders of the court. So far as issuance of
second cheque bearing no. 0150299 dated 31.10.2012 is
concerned, either the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa
should have issued the cheque straightway in the name of the
decree-holder/petitioner or the concerned court should have
adopted the same procedure for depositing the same in the
account of decree-holder/petitioner, which was earlier adopted.
For such laches, the petitioner could not be held liable. It is also
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1214 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
a fact that as soon as the second cheque bearing no. 069354 was
issued, it was duly received by the petitioner within a day and
deposited and encashed by him. So, there is no deliberate or
laches apparent on part of the petitioner.
07. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I think
the learned executing court passed the impugned order without
proper consideration of the fact. Hence, the order dated
02.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I-cum-L.A. Judge,
Katihar in Land Acquisition Execution Case No. 01 of 2011 is
set aside. In the result, the petition dated 08.04.2016 filed by the
petitioner with regard to claim of Rs. 1,25,998/- is allowed.
Accordingly, the present civil misc. petition stands
allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13-05-2024
Transmission Date NA
