BHAGABAN SAHU Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal from the confirming decision of the subordinate Judge of Bhadrak by which their suit has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit for a declaration that the land acauisition proceedings for acquiring their lands in Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 1958-59 and No. 8 of 196162 were invalid and to restrain the defendants which include the Collector and the land Acauisition Officer of Balasore from proceeding with the said Land Acauisition cases. Their case is that the villagers previously tried to forcibly construct a road upon the suit-lands belonging to them. They had to file a Title Suit No. 112 oi 1956 (1)against the villagers. Their suit was a representative suit and was decreed on 296-62, and the defendants in that suit were directed to restore the status duo. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed some suits for damages against some of the defendants in the aforesaid representative suit and those suits were decreed and the decree was levied in execution for realisation of the amount. The villagers, therefore, moved the S. D. O. Bhadrak. to assist them in getting the lands acquired and agreed to deposit the cost of acauisition when so required. Then section 4 notification was issued and the ordersheet of the Land Acquisition Case indicates that on 13-5-60 at the instance of the villagers the S. D. O. also gave a contribution of Rs. 5/- from the public revenue. Obiections against the acquisition were preferred, heard and rejected. The entire compensation amount, it also appears, was deposited by the villagers in the treasury. Thereupon Section 6 notification was issued.

(3.) THE main contentions raised In this appeal on behalf of the appellants are: (i)The first proviso (sic) to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that before a declaration can be made under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act it should be decided that the compensation is to be paid either by the company or out of public revenue or out of the funds of a local authority, and where when the declaration is made no such decision has been arrived at and there was only the money contributed by the villasers for payment of compensation, the declaration is not a valid one. (ii) Public revenue are revenues consisting mostly of exactions which the State makes under a law from its citizens such as taxes, land revenues, duties, fees. cesses and so on, and constitute part of the consolidated fund of the State which can be appropriated only in accordance with law and in the manner provided by the Constitution. In view of this conception of 'public revenue', the sum of Rs. 5/contributed by the S. D. O. from out of the development fund is not public revenue within the meaning of Section 6 (1) proviso of the Land Acquisition Act (iii) The contribution in question being only for the purpose of construction of a road, could not be considered as a fund controlled or managed by the local authority, and in dealing with this question some important items of documentary-evidence have been omitted from consideration by the courts below, and the lower appellate court has also ignored some important evidence in this respect. (iv) The lower appellate court has not considered the effect of Exts. 1. 1 (a ). Q. T. T/l. J. B. Q and Q/3 and Exts. T and T/1 in finding that the acquisition proceeding, is not a colourable exercise of power. (v) There Is no evidence, at any rate there is no discussion of evidence by the lower appellate court that the amount deposited is a part of the Grama fund and was in the disposing power of Grama Sasan and that it was sanctioned under the provisions of Sections 5 and 98 of the Gram Panchayat Act (vi) Further, such fund cannot be said to be a fund managed and controlled by the local authority, and the letter from the S. D. O. to the Grama Panchayat requesting the latter to pass appropriate resolutions, amounts to colourable exercise of power.