AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
RFA No. 4186 of 2013 and CMP No. 13759 of 2014
Award dated 29.8.2013 passed in Land Reference Petition No. 22-4 of 2006 is under challenge in this appeal. The appeal stands admitted for final hearing. An application being CMP No. 13759 of 2014 as aforesaid, came to be filed with a prayer to allow the appeal on dismissal of the Reference Petition on the ground that the compensation with respect to the acquired land entered in Khewat No. 45, bearing Khasra No. 22 and 115, measuring 3 and 4 bighas and Khewat No. 79, measuring 0-1 Bigha belonging to respondent Kirpa Ram, has been sought to be enhanced and ultimately enhanced by learned District Judge vide award under challenge in this appeal twice i.e. in Reference Petition No. 22-4 of 2006 and in Reference Petition No. 17-4 of 2006. The award passed by learned District Judge in Reference Petition No. 22-4 of 2006 is under challenge in the present appeal whereas in Land Reference 17-4 of 2006 in connected RFA No. 338 of 2013. He is one of the petitioners along with his mother Smt. Tilphu.
Respondent No. 1-claimant has filed reply to the application being CMP No. 13759 of 2014. He has admitted the compensation in respect of the acquired land in his share having been sought to be enhanced twice. However according to him, inadvertently and on account of communication gap between him and learned counsel representing him. Respondent No. 2-Land Acquisition Collector in a separate reply filed to the application has also admitted that compensation qua the same land in the share of respondent-claimant Kirpa Ram has been sought to be enhanced twice i.e. firstly in reference petition No. 17-4 of 2006 and thereafter in reference No. 22-4 of 2006. Learned Addl. District Judge has enhanced the compensation qua the same land twice vide award under challenge in this appeal and orders of RFA No. 338 of 2013.
After taking note of the reply filed on behalf of land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2, following order came to be passed in the application CMP No. 13759 of 2014 on 14.11.2014:--
"Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 2 has filed reply. Learned counsel representing the 1st respondent, however, prays for and is granted two weeks more time for filing reply.
This application discloses a very sorrow state of affairs, as respondent No. 1 Kirpa Ram preferred two reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation in respect of same piece of land acquired for construction of Kol Dam Project in District Bilaspur. One of the reference petition, he preferred is registered as Reference Petition No. 22-4 of 2006 and has been disposed of vide award under challenge in this appeal and the number of another Reference Petition is 17-4 of 2006. The award passed therein is also under challenge in RFA No. 338 of 2013. Learned Additional District Judge has passed the award in both the references and determined the compensation awarded by respondent No. 2 resulting in enhancement thereof. The appellant-Company has deposited enhanced amount of compensation in both appeals in the Registry of this Court. The respondent-State had come to know about making more than one reference with regard to same acquired land for the determination of the compensation in the month of February, 2014, as is apparent from Annexure A-1 to this application. Not only this, but other instances of filing of more than one reference have also been quoted in Annexure A-1. The filing of more than one reference in respect of same acquired property disclose the commission of an offence such as cheating and forgery, not only serious in nature but heinous also. Therefore, the respondent-State should have woke up from long slumber and by this time inquired into the matter and brought the culprit(s) to clock. Learned Additional Advocate General has pleaded no instructions in this regard. He, however, seeks time to have instructions. Let him do so and inform this Court about the action, if any, already taken in the matter or not. Record of RFA No. 338 of 2013 be also tagged herewith for the next date. List on 19th December, 2014.
An authenticated copy of this order to learned Additional Advocate General for compliance."
When no compliance to the order was made by the respondent-State, this court has ordered further as under on 23.6.2015:--
"Rejoinder is not intended to be filed as stated by learned counsel representing the applicant/appellant. In terms of the order passed in this application on 14th November, 2014, the respondent-State was directed to inform this Court about the action, if any, taken in the matter on coming to know about making two references qua the same acquired land. No compliance report to the order so passed has been placed on record till date. The compliance report be now filed on or before the next date, failing which the District Collector, Bilaspur, respondent No. 3 shall remain present in person to assist the Court. List on 7th July, 2015.
An authenticated copy of this order to learned Additional Advocate General for compliance."
As noticed supra against the award passed in reference petition No. 17-4 of 2006, RFA No. 338 of 2013 came to be filed in this court whereas against the award passed in RFA No. 22-4 of 2006, the present appeal, RFA No. 4186 of 2013. Both appeals were clubbed and came to be listed before this court on 28.7.2015 along with CMP No. 13759 of 2014. Taking note of the particulars such as the area of the acquired land, its Khasra Numbers and whether the amount was sought to be enhanced qua the land or structure lacking on record, learned counsel representing the appellant was granted time to go through the record and clarify the position in this regard. The orders in this matter passed on that date reads as follows:--
"Heard for some time. The complaint is that two separate reference petitions have been filed by the claimant(s)-respondent(s) qua the same land and the District Judge has also awarded the enhanced compensation therein twice qua the same land. The record of the Reference Petition No. 22/4 of 2006, out of which this appeal (RFA No. 4168 of 2013) has arisen, reveals that Khasra No. etc. of the acquired land has not been mentioned and in para-1 thereof, there is reference of only some house. The award passed by learned district Judge in this petition is also silent as to qua which land the compensation has been enhanced and awarded. If coming to Reference Petition No. 17-4 of 2006, the same has been filed by Tilphu and kirpa. This petition has been filed for enhancement of the compensation with respect to the acquired land being Khasra Nos. 22,15,105, Khewat No. 45, 29/67. Tilphu is the wife of one Santa, whereas Kirpa is the son of said Shri Santa. In the petition, he, however, has been shown as the son of Majna. Majna, as a matter of fact, is his grand father. In order to find out the exact area of the acquired land belonging to the petitioners in both these petitions and the enhanced compensation awarded to them, the record is required to be looked into. It is also required to be ascertained from the record that after the decision of the reference petitions the calculation of the enhanced amount has been made qua which Khasra No. and area also. It is also required to be ascertained that the compensation awarded as per the award passed in Reference No. 22-4 of 2006, under challenge in RFA No. 4168 of 2013, is qua the house and in Reference Petition No. 17-4 of 2006, under challenge in RFA No. 338 of 2013, qua three areas, as aforesaid. Learned counsel representing the appellant seeks time to go through the record and make submissions on the next date. List on 4th September, 2015."
Learned counsel representing the appellant has placed on record the written instructions which clarifies the factual aspect i.e. particulars qua the area of the acquired property nature thereof and compensation awarded etc. The written instructions make it crystal clear that respondent claimant Kirpa Ram has sought enhancement of the compensation qua the acquired land bearing Khasra No. 22 and 115 Khewat No. 45 and Khewat No. 79 to the extent of his share i.e. measuring 3-4 bighas and Khewat No. 79 measuring 0-1 bigha, total 3-5 bighas twice i.e. in Reference Petition No. 17-4 of 2006, he filed along with his mother, Smt. Tilfu, and subsequently in reference petition No. 22-4 of 2006 he filed alone. Learned District Judge has also enhanced the compensation in both Reference Petitions qua the same land twice as is apparent from the award under challenge passed in a bunch of petitions including Reference Petition No. 17-4 of 2006 and 22-4 of 2006. Award passed in both petitions is under challenge before this court, as noticed herein above.
Interestingly enough had the filing of two references qua the same land been went unnoticed, respondent-claimant Kirpa Ram would have received the enhanced amount of compensation in respect of the same land twice and thereby caused wrongful loss to the acquiring establishment i.e. NTPC Limited, the appellant. The respondent -claimant thought being at fault has rendered himself liable to be dealt with sternly in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the second respondent has already registered an FIR in all the matters where the compensation has been sought to be enhanced twice including the present one, therefore, appropriate action, if any, warranted against him is left open to be taken by the competent court/authority. It is worth mentioning that the respondent-State has also initiated departmental inquiry against the official(s) involved in this matter. Whether filing of two references qua the same land has been withheld from the court deliberately or unintentionally or on account of a mistake, unintentional and bonafide has also to be seen during the course of the investigation/inquiry, ordered to be initiated in the matter.
So far as the enhanced amount of compensation in both references is concerned the same lying deposited in the Registry of this Court and is still un-disbursed. The amount lying deposited in this appeal, therefore, deserves to be refunded to the appellant-company.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and Reference Petition No. 22-4 of 2006 titled as "Kirpa Ram versus Land Acquisition Collector and others" is ordered to be dismissed and the award passed by learned Additional District Judge is quashed and set aside. The amount of compensation lying deposited in this case be refunded to the appellant together with interest up to date by remitting the same to its account, particulars whereof to be supplied to the Registry of this court by the appellant.
The appeal and also the application(s) is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.