Banshi Lal and Another vs Lrs of Late Shri Tulsi Ram Dangi and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dt. 27.03.2008 by which the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Banshi Lal and Hangami Lal-appellants filed one suit for declaration and injunction seeking declaration that they may be declared to be Khatedar-tenants of the agricultural land as they become Khatedar-tenants of the said land by virtue of the Will dt. 29.06.1996. They sought relief of injunction that any compensation of land acquisition proceedings may not be given to the respondent No. 1. The relevant facts are that for the land in question a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.02.1990 and it was published in the Gazette on 04.06.1992. Several awards dt. 12.02.1996, 19.02.1997, 14.02.1996, 09.04.1996 and 08.02.1996 were passed. The land stands acquired. The acquisition was not under challenge before the revenue Court and it should not have been in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others, During the pendency of the suit a consent written statement was filed by the contesting defendant admitting the validity of the Will dt. 29.06.1996.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dt. 10.07.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court referred above and observed that since the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the plaintiffs because the nature of the land has been converted from agricultural land to Abadi land by virtue of land acquisition, therefore, no decree can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by first appellate Court and by Board of Revenue in second appeal. The writ petition to challenge above judgments was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment. Hence, this special appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is non-speaking order and merely on this count, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. It is also submitted that the revenue Court has committed serious error of law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and appellant Court also committed error of law by dismissing the appeal. It is submitted that that respondent admitted the Will then the Will''s validity could not have been questioned by the respondent No. 2 UIT for whose benefit, the land was acquired. In that view of the matter, the revenue Court should have granted the decree.

We considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant documents placed on record.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge is brief and even if the order is non-speaking order, the appellate Court may set aside that order only if satisfied that there is arguable matter and there is some merit in the original petition. Appellate Court need not to set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge merely for the purpose of rewriting of the order, therefore, we found it necessary to hear the learned Counsel for the appellants on merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued on merits, which we examined.

After going through the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that onces the land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, then that proceedings can be challenged by appropriate way before the appropriate forum and in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court cannot be challenged in Civil Court and by the same reason cannot be challenged in Revenue Courts and it can be challenged by way of filing writ petition. Be it as it may be, in the present facts, it is clear that there is no challenge to the land acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Act is self-contained and provides all provisions for determining of the rights of all parties claiming any compensation or benefit for the land in question. The respondent since admitted that Will executed in favour of the plaintiff and because of that if they got any right, then also the plaintiffs could have approached the Land Acquisition Officer by submitting their claim on the basis of Will and which could have been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and if the Land Acquisition Officer would have decided against the plaintiffs then further remedy is also available in the Land Acquisition Act itself, which provides for making reference to the Civil Court wherein the issue who is entitled to the compensation could have been decided by the civil Court and, therefore, in our opinion, there was no illegality in the orders dt. 10.07.2006 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Girwa, Revenue Appellate Authority, Girwa dt. 09.04.2007 and judgment delivered by the Board of Revenue dt. 24.07.2007.

Hence, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed.