Dismissed

Mahadeo Oraon v. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer and Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2023FA/150/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 11 of the R.A.I.P. Act, 1952. It held that the Sole Arbitrator correctly found that the appellant received compensation without protest based on his categorical deposition in cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any costs, and the lower court record was sent back.

Mahadeo Oraon Vs Union of India through Defence Estate… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.150 of 2015

¶4

Mahadeo Oraon, son of late Jouru Oraon, by occupation Cultivator, resident of Village- Tumbagutu, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Dist. Ranchi

¶5

.... .... …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer, Danapur Cantt., JOB Circle, P.O.- Danapur, P.S. Danapur, Patna (Bihar)

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority, u/s 2 (b) of R.A.I.P. Act, 1952 District Collectorate, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi

¶9

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, District Collectorate, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi

¶10

.... .... .... Respondents ------

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. Himanshu Kr. Mehta, Advocate : Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, CGC

¶12

------

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court.:- Heard the parties.

¶16

This appeal filed under Section 11 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 have been preferred against the award dated 03.07.2015 in Arbitration Case No. 01 of 2014 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator whereby and where under, the learned Sole Arbitrator has passed the award in paragraph no.21 in which it ordered that the award shall be calculated on the formula mentioned therein.

¶17

The brief facts of the case is that the land of the appellant and the other claimants was acquired in L.A. Case No. 7 of 1986-87 (M.T.Y.) in the year 1987 by a gazette notification dated 13.01.1987. The compensation of

¶18

¶19

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶20

the land so acquired was paid to the appellant and the claimants either they being land owners or persons having interest in the land; at the end of the year 1989; by payment vouchers being Ext. 3 series. The claimants before the learned Sole Arbitrator including the appellantclaimant no.1 felt aggrieved by the amount of compensation and so they filed CWJC No. 4419 of 2000 (R) on the ground that while receiving the compensation, they received the same under protest and had raised objection against the compensation so assessed by the competent authority under the Act. The court passed order for arbitration. L.P.A. filed against the said order was dismissed. As the order was still not complied. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1070 of 2013 was filed and in the contempt proceeding, the appointment of the arbitrator was made. The claimants are claiming just and fair compensation.

¶21

The sole Arbitrator upon considering the facts on record framed nine points for determination and for this appeal the only point for determination which is relevant is point for determination no.(iv) which is as under:-

¶22

“(iv) Whether the compensation was received by the claimants under protest/objection?”

¶23

In this respect, the learned Sole Arbitrator inter alia considered the cross-examination of the appellantclaimant no.1- Mahadeo Oraon in which he has

¶24

¶25

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶26

categorically stated that no protest was made.

¶27

In view of the admission of the appellant-claimant no.1 in his deposition that there was no protest, the learned Sole Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the compensation was not received on protest inter alia by the appellant-claimant no.1 and decided the issue no. (iv) accordingly.

¶28

It is submitted by Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sole Arbitrator while discarding the claim of the claimant no.1 considered his evidence in cross-examination ignoring the fact of his age, his position as mentioned in the deposition and other facts. It is next submitted by Mr. Mehta that the learned Sole Arbitrator rejected the claim of the claimant no.1 in an arbitrarily manner. It is further submitted by Mr. Mehta that the learned Sole Arbitrator failed to consider that in Ext.3 on the top of the payment vouchers, there is an endorsement that “ Appati Ke Sath Bhugtan Hua ” as mentioned in paragraph no. 8 (c) of the award. Hence, it is submitted that the finding of the learned Sole Arbitrator is bad in law. It is lastly submitted that the award dated 03.07.2015 passed in Arbitration Case No. 01 of 2014 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramaditya Prasad (Retd.) wherein, the learned Sole Arbitrator awarded the claim of the claimant no.1 in an arbitrarily manner be dismissed.

¶29

¶30

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶31

Learned Central Government Counsel on the other hand opposes the prayer to set aside the finding of the learned Sole Arbitrator in respect of the issue no. (iv). It is next submitted by the learned Central Government Counsel that it is undisputed that in cross-examination, the appellant-claimant no.1 has categorically stated that he accepted the compensation without making any protest and under such circumstances, there is no error in the finding of facts arrived at by the learned Sole Arbitrator that the compensation was not received on protest inter alia by the appellant-claimant no.1. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination which crop up in this appeal is:-

¶33

Whether the findings of the sole Arbitrator inter alia that the appellant-claimant no.1 receiving compensation without protest is illegal and liable to be set aside?

¶34

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the appellant-claimant no.1 himself was examined as a witness before the learned Sole Arbitrator under oath. There is no material in the record to suggest that he was under any disability. The deposition was recorded by the arbitrator who is a former Judge of this Court. There is no dispute that in no uncertain manner, the appellant-claimant no.1 has stated in his cross-

¶35

¶36

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶37

examination that no protest was made by him at the time of receiving the compensation and the finding arrived at by the learned Sole Arbitrator was on such categorical deposition of the appellant-claimant no.1, this Court does not find any illegality in the finding of facts arrived at by the learned Sole Arbitrator when such finding of facts was on the categorical statement made by the appellant-C.W.1 who appeared before the learned Sole Arbitrator and the learned Sole Arbitrator had the opportunity of seeing the demeanor of the appellant-claimant no.1 as a witness.

¶38

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶39

appellant that the learned Sole Arbitrator has mentioned in paragraph no. 8 (c) that on the top of the payment voucher being Ext. 3 series, there is an endorsement that “ Appati Ke Sath Bhugtan Hua ” is concerned, there is no material in the record to suggest that who has made such endorsement and the appellant-claimant no.1 who himself purported to have made such endorsement “ Appati Ke Sath Bhugtan Hua ” having himself come before the learned Sole Arbitrator and resiled from such endorsement and has in no uncertain manner having stated that he did not make any protest, this Court does not find any error on the part of the learned Sole Arbitrator in accepting the testimony of the appellant-claimant no.1 in preference to the statement attributed to him which he did not accept as a witness. Hence, this Court does not find any justifiable

¶40

¶41

F.A.No. 150 of 2015

¶42

reason to interfere with such finding of facts of the learned Sole Arbitrator. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly.

¶43

In the result, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs.

¶44

Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.

¶45

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶46

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3^rd August, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-

Mahadeo Oraon v. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Oraon v. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Irfan Khan Alias Irfan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Bhagat Alias Krishna Nand Bhagat Alias Kaaru Alias Karu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raushan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chander Bharti Alias Chandra Bhuiyan Vs Parmanand Singh

Smita Samuel Vs the State of Jharkhand