Saurabh Narayan Singh vs Gudia Devi

Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Apoorva Singh, learned A.C. to S.C.(M)-I, appearing for the State, who are O.P. Nos. 3 and 4.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2019 passed in L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Hazaribagh. Further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 05.07.2024, passed in L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Hazaribagh. Further prayer is also made for a direction upon the learned trial court to implead the petitioner as a party to L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015.

Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government of India by virtue of National Highway Act,1956 issued a notification, which was published in the official gazette dated 14.01.2011 for acquisition of the land including the land in question i.e. the land appertaining to Plot No. 1386 under Khata No. 74 situated at Village-Karso, admeasuring 0.05 acre. He submits that the award was prepared for awarding the compensation in the name of the father of the O.P. No. 2 Bindeshwari Singh. He submits that in the meantime, the awardee namely Bindeshwari Singh has left for his heavenly abode and the name of O.P. No. 2 was substituted in his place, as he is the son of the awardee. He further submits that the dispute was raised and accordingly a reference to the court was made on 16.08.2014 under Section 3(h)(iv) of the National Highway Act and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2010-11, which was re-numbered as L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015 before the learned trial court. He further submits that the petitioner was represented through his General Power of Attorney Holder and file a written statement and claimed that the compensation should be awarded in his favour, as he is the original raiyat of the acquired land. He then submits that the learned court by order dated 08.03.2019 has rejected the prayer for proposed intervention. He submits that by Annexure-5 dated 24.07.2020 the competent authority in the said case has been pleased to refer the reference to the trial court in L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015, in which, notice has been issued and subsequently the learned trial court has been pleased to reject the said impleadment petition.

By way of elaborating his argument, he submits that the learned court has not appreciated the fact that the petitioner is the interested person and he is also having the right of receiving the compensation in spite of that the learned court has wrongly passed the said order. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set side.

On the other hand, Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 and 2 has opposed the prayer and submits that not even a single chit of paper has been brought on record to suggest that how the petitioner is interested person so far as the land in question is concerned. He draws the attention of the court to Annexure-B Series of the counter affidavit and submits that the rent receipts and the khatiyan with regard to the land in question are annexed, wherein the name of the father of the O.P. No. 2 is disclosed. He further submits that the said land in question was acquired and considering that the land belongs to the father of the O.P. No. 2, the award has already been made in favour of the father of the O.P. No. 2. He also submits that for the land in question, one title suit has already been instituted by the petitioner herein, being Title Suit No. 160 of 2018, which is still pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Hazaribag. He submits that in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the learned trial court has rightly passed the orders in absence of any documents to suggest as how the petitioner is an interested person so far as the acquired land is concerned.

Mr. Apoorva Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the given facts and circumstances, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Hazaribag has rightly passed the impugned orders. He submits that the documents have not been brought on record to suggest how the petitioner is the interested person so far as the acquired land is concerned.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that the land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for construction of the road, pursuant to Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2010-11, which was re-numbered as L.R. Case No. 02 of 2015 before the learned trial court. In that L.R. Case, the award has been passed in favour of the father of the O.P. No. 2. Petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Hazaribag by the order dated 08.03.2019 considering the spirit of Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and further considering that he was not the party to the proceeding before the learned acquisition officer and thereafter the petitioner herein has approached the competent authority for reference and pursuant to that the competent authority has made the reference, wherein the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Hazaribag has been pleased to hold that the petitioner is not the interested person.

Admittedly, the documents brought on record by way of filing counter affidavit, which is Annexure-B Series clearly suggests that the land in question was in the name of the father of the O.P. No.2 and that is proved in light of Khatiyan as well as the rent receipts issued by the Revenue Department of the State. At a belated stage, such petition has been filed for impleadment of the party, which has been rejected by the learned court considering that he has not been able to show how he is interested and the learned court has further held that after receiving the reference, only notice has been issued, as the petitioner was not made a party and on this background, he has been pleased to reject the same.

When a person is approaching the court for intervening, he has to prove before the learned court that how he is interested party in the proceeding in question and the document in support thereof has to be filed along with the intervention petition to suggest that he was also the khatiyani raiyat or he was also the family member of the father of O.P. No. 2 Bindeshwari Singh and if that is not proved, the learned court has rightly passed the orders, as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the court as to how the petitioner was the interested person to intervene in the said proceeding.

The mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard in the matter and is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Reference may be made to the case of Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760.

In view of the above, the court finds that in absence of any documentary evidence to suggest that the petitioner is also having the share in the land in question, which has been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for construction of the road, there is no illegality in the impugned orders, accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

However, it is made clear that the pending suit before the learned court will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.