M.Y.EQBAL,D.K.SINHA,J. - (1.) MEMBERS of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other communities whose agricultural lands were acquired 45 -50 years back and Steel Plant was established by the Central Government, namely, Bokaro Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited are the sufferers. The unfortunate part of this case is that those raiyats and land loosers have still not been paid their rightful and legitimate compensation because of the fact that the State of Bihar, now Jharkhand challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge by filing these appeals which are pending for the last 16 years in this Court.
(2.) ON 1.5.2006, these appeals were taken up by learned Single Judge and the same was referred to the Division Bench. While referring the matter to the Division Bench, learned Single Judge, considering the provisions of Section 89 of the C.P.C. and the Mandate of the Supreme Court, expressed his feelings that it is high time the dispute be settled through Alternative Dispute Redressal Forum so that those poor land losers could get compensation of their land. For that purpose this Court directed the Chief Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner, Secretaries of the Water Resources and Agriculture Department to appear before the Division Bench. Accordingly, on 2.5.2006 the matter was heard by the Division Bench and the following order was passed: Heard in part. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21st September, 1998 and the award dated 3rd November, 1990, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Chas, in L.A. Reference Case Nos. 360 of 1976 and 1 of 1989. The lands, in question, were acquired by the State in the year, 1960 -61 in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. A number of awards were prepared in favour of different claimants and many of them, being dissatisfied with the award amount, moved for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On similar issues, judgments having already been delivered by Division Bench of this Court (Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court), following those judgments, the Land Acquisition Judge answered the two reference in favour of the claimants and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/ - per Acre for paddy land and Rs. 6,000/ - per Acre for Gora land. The judgment of the Division Bench, on the basis of which references were answered, related to some other lands, acquired by the State for same purpose in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, at that relevant point of time. The Division Bench's judgment, not having been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court, has already reached finality. The apples which are pending before the High Court for about fifteen years, could not be taken up due to pendency of large number of cases and shortage of Judges. Before division of the State of Bihar, a decision was taken that where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/ -, no appeal should he preferred by the State and the appeal(s), already preferred, should be withdrawn. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, similar decision was taken by the State of Jharkhand from its Water Resources Development Department vide letter No. 14/03 -OA 43/2002: - 3002, Ranchi dated 19th September, 2002. The State of Jharkhand also decided not to prefer any appeal where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/ - and to withdraw the appeal(s). If preferred against such judgment(s) and award(s). Such decision were been taken in public interest. Section 89 was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with, effect, from 1st July, 2002 and provision was made enabling the Court to find out, if there exists element of settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties to formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observation and after receiving the observation of the parties, to formulate the terms of a possible settlement and to refer the same for settlement through alternative forum for resolution (Alternative Dispute Resolution -ADR). The Jharkhand High Court Legal Service Authority has intended to hold a Lok Adalat on 7th May, 2006. To find out whether appeals, pending against the orders, passed in Land Acquisition Cases, can be settled outside the Court in Lok Adalat, step was taken under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Single Judge (one of us - M.Y. Eqbal, J.), it having come to the notice of the Court that there are large number of cases where lands were acquired about 40 -45 years back and the matter has not yet been settled because of large number of appeals, preferred by the State, irrespective of the quantum of compensation amount, awarded to the claimants -land losers. Considering the fact that the lands were acquired in the year, 1961 -62 and the Land Acquisition Judge, besides determining the compensation amount, also directed to pay additional compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value from the date of notification, issued about fifty years back i.e. on 10th August, 1956 and the solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value as also the further interest at the rate of 9% and 15%, as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter should, be settled before the Lok Adalat. Public interest being involved and as the State spends the money for fighting out litigations and if the case is not decided immediately and ultimately the case is lost, the State is to cough huge amount, which ultimately burdens the public exchequer, so the case was referred by learned Single Judge to Division Bench for hearing and the Chief Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner, Secretary, Water Resources Development Department Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, as also the Agriculture Secretary were directed to appear before the Court to answer as to why they be not ready to comply with the mandate of the Parliament, as contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil procedure and the similar mandate of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid officers appeared today but shown inability for settlement outside the Court. One of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.) while referring the appeals to the Division Bench noticed that the present matter is pending for last 45 years and in the event, the appeals fail, the State will have to pay ten times more than the amount of compensation, assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. This fact was brought to the notice of the State authorities, who are present in the Court, and it was suggested to compromise the matter and to withdraw the appeals in cases, where compensation amount has been awarded up to Rs. 1,00,000/ -, which may ultimately be in the financial interest of the State. It was brought to their notice that even if the appellate court interferes with the order, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, the total compensation amount will not he set aside and, at best, the compensation amount may be brought down and above 70 to 80 percent of the compensation amount may have to be paid. In that case also, if the State contests the cases and they remain pending for about 45 years and 70 to 80 percent of the awarded compensation is paid with additional compensation, solatium and interest, as provided under Section 23(2), in such case after about 40 to 45 years, the State will have to bear much more amount than the amount, if the original compensation amount would have been paid 45 years back, without contesting the cases. Inspite of the aforesaid discussions, no cooperation having been made by the State authorities and as the learned Advocate General also failed to pursue the State authorities and did not agree for settlement, we are of the view that apart from decision of the cases on merit, it may be determined 'whether in public interest the State should contest the case up to appellate stage, if the amount of compensation does not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/ - and if the matter remains pending for more than forty five years in a court of law?' Parties should be ready for hearing on merit and on the issue, as framed above. Let both the cases be listed for further hearing under the heading 'for orders' on 12th May, 2006.' The matter was again heard on adjourned dated (12.9.2006). Learned Counsel appearing for the Bokaro Steel Plant informed that about 7000 applications are pending under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector -cum -Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. Learned Counsel further informed that the Steel Authority of India Ltd in interested to settle all the claims so that State of Jharkhand could finally transfer those lands in favour of the Company by executing a deed of conveyance. It was submitted that all cases shall be settled with the help of Lok Adalats. After hearing the parties, this Court constituted a Committee consisting of Conciliator appointed by State Legal Services Authority, Mr. Sandip Tula, A.G.M. (Personnel), Managing Director, Secretariat Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL and Mr. M.P. Sinha, A.G.M. (Project) Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate and the Director (Project) Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro. The Law Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand was nominated as Convener of the Committee and was directed to submit detailed report as to number of cases pending before the Land Acquisition officer and the amount which the company is ready to pay. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Law Secretary of the Committee submitted report. In the report, it is stated that the Steel Authority of India Ltd. is ready to take entire liability and shall pay the entire compensation amount to the raiyats whose lands were acquired on the condition that the State Government shall immediately transfer the land by executing a deed of conveyance giving full right to the Steel Authority of India Limited. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the report, this Court directed the Revenue Secretary to file affidavit. After much persuasion one affidavit was filed by the Revenue Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. For better appreciation, I would like to reproduce the entire affidavit filed by the Revenue Secretary which reads as under: 1. That I am at present working and posted as the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi and, as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2. That the deponent is swearing this affidavit as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court on the Steel Authority of India Ltd., agreeing to undertake the entire liability with regard to payment of compensation to the land looser arising out of the acquisitions made for the establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro and also with relation to such agreeing of Steel Authority of India Ltd., (hereinafter to be referred to as the SAIL) for execution of a Deed of conveyance by the State Government in favour of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 3. That, the deponent states and submits that the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should unequivocally agree and undertake that it would pay to the land loosers whatsoever amount of compensation is determined for payment in the pending proceedings in any court and also it should agree and undertake that it would pay all such compensation to the claimants, if so determined in due proceedings to be initiated in future.
(3.) THAT , the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should also agree and undertake that whatsoever amount if the State Government has so far paid in the previous proceedings to the land -loosers from the State Exchequer and has not been returned or paid by the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) to the State Government, the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) shall also pay the entire such amount to the State Government without any preconditions(s).;