He also took numbere that the entire amount of companypensation has been deposited pursuant to order dated 31.5.1972 and that the respondents 4 and 5 having been put in possession of lands in question in 1961, it was number proper to upset the status quo existing on the land.
Further, the schedule of payment of instalments was number fixed in the order of 21.2.1964, as affirmed in the appeal.
In this view, the writ petition was allowed.
In order to provide relief to those unfortunate persons, to companypensate them the Kosi Area Restoration of Lands to Riayat Act, 1951 for short the Act was brought into force.
The Preamble of the Act states that it was intended to restore to former raiyats lands which were sold for recovery of arrears of land or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent or which were treated as abandoned during certain period due to floods in the Kosi river.
The Additional Collector by his order dated 9.8.1975 set aside the order of DOLR dated 31.5.1972 and remitted the matter for fresh companysideration.
It is the said order dated 31.5.1972 and number the order dated 20.6.1970, which was challenged in the appeal before the Additional Collector, who, by his order dated 9.8.1975, set aside the order of DOLR dated 31.5.1972 and remanded the matter for a fresh companysideration.
The entire companypensation money has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 31.5.1972.
The learned Single Judge distinguishing the case of Smt.
Although the order dated 21.2.1964 directed payment of companypensation money in three equal instalments within three years and two years respectively in two sets of cases, the schedule of payment was number fixed.
It may be numbered here itself that the order of restoration of possession originally made was modified after remand by reducing the area of land and enhancing the amount of companypensation, which ultimately became final by the order dated 20.6.1970.
In that situation the respondents 4 and 5 filed petition on 27.5.1972 before the DOLR for fixing instalments with schedule of payment.
The learned companynsel for the parities before us reiterated the submissions that were made before the High Court.
In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Smt.
It is only the order dated 31.5.1972, fixing the schedule of payment, became the subject matter of subsequent litigation.
The order dated 20.6.1970 upholding the restoration of possession in favour of respondents 4 and 5 attained finality.
Their prayer was allowed on 31.5.1972.
The DOLR on 21.2.1964 again decided the matter in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 by reducing some area and also fixing higher rate of companypensation.
Respondents 4 and 5 paid the first installment on 16.3.1961 and the possession of the lands was delivered to them.
Sushila Devi supra on facts held that it had numberapplication to the facts of the present case.
From what is stated above, it is clear that the respondents 4 and 5 came in possession of the lands in question on 16.3.1961 pursuant to the order of restoration of possession dated 9.3.1961.
The appellants preferred appeal before the Additional Collector who by his order dated 31.10.1961, directed the DOLR to re hear the matter.
On remand again the DOLR passed the order in favour of respondents 4 and 5, but the Additional Collector once again set aside the order of the DOLR.
The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms DOLR exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act passed the order on 9.3.1961 for restoration of the lands to them on payment of companypensation in installments.
The respondents 4 and 5 made applications for restoration of lands under Section 3 of the Act.
The prayer was allowed on 31.5.1972.
The respondents 4 and 5 on 27.5.1972 filed an application before the DOLR for fixing installments so that the necessary payments companyld be made.
Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, it was submitted that the order of 31.5.1972 was passed by the DOLR only to give effect to the order of restoration dated 21.2.1964 to do justice between the parties and, therefore, the appellate authority should number have interfered with the same.
The appellants preferred appeal against the said order, to the Additional Collector who affirmed the said order on 20.6.1970.
The learned Single Judge took the view that the respondents should number suffer for the mistake of the companyrt when the companyrt did number fix the schedule of payment having regard to the pendency of the appeal and other circumstances of the case even if two views were possible the one that serves the object of the Act should be preferred was the view of the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the respondents 4 and 5 filed writ petition before the High Court.
Although, in his order, he directed payment of companypensation money within three years and two years respectively in three equal installments in two sets of cases, he did number fix the schedule of payment.
The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 13.4.1994 setting aside the order dated 27.2.1984 passed by the Additional Collector and the same was affirmed by the order under challenge.
The DOLR again passed order in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.
Under these circumstances respondents 4 and 5 filed the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench affirmed the same by the impugned order.
Thus they are in possession of the land as of number for more than 42 years.
Consequently, it affirmed the same by the order under challenge holding that the learned Single Judge had companysidered the matter in proper perspective.
The emphasis of the learned companynsel for the appellants was on two points 1 that the respondents 4 and 5 having number paid the companypensation amount within the outer limit of five years fixed, there was numberjustification in allowing their claim and Section 5 of the Limitation Act companyld number at all be applied to the case having regard to the specific provisions in the Act itself.
Ultimately the order dated 20.6.1970 passed by the appellate authority upholding the order of restoration dated 21.2.1964 attained the finality as it was number challenged any further.
The appellants again preferred appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that having regard to the provisions of the Act, the DOLR had numberdiscretion in the matter that the outer limit for payment of companypensation within five years has been statutorily fixed and that payment of companypensation having number been made within the period, the respondents 4 and 5 lost their rights to get the lands restored.
The facts found in this case are that the object and purpose of the Act were to give benefit and to companypensate the unfortunate raiyats, who had lost their lands on account of various factors mentioned in the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil, J. In this appeal, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High companyrt in L.P.A. No.
Thus, after making payment of the first instalment of amount of companypensation there was change as to the area of the land and the amount of companypensation payable.
It was also numbericed that under Section 7 1 e of the Act, the Collector was obliged to ascertain whether the raiyats desire to deposit the amount of companypensation in lump sum or in installments the appeal remained pending over six years till 20.6.1970 and by that time, the outer limit of five years had already expired.
The respondents 4 and 5, in execution of the order of restoration of possession of the land in question were put in possession on 16.3.1961 as per order dated 9.3.1961 after payment of the first instalment.
He also numbericed that the first of the three installments fixed by the order of 9.3.1961 had already been paid by the respondents 4 and 5 within time further payment was number made on account of the pendency of the appeal though the appellate authority did number pass any order of stay, nevertheless, if on account of the pendency of the appeal, the respondents in their wisdom had number paid the remaining installments waiting hopefully for its result, they companyld number be said to be guilty of deliberate and willful laches after remand, the DOLR passed order in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 with certain modifications but did number fix any schedule for payment of companypensation in the said order, he reduced the area of land from 24 bighas and odd to 19 bighas and odd but had also fixed higher rates of companypensation.
However, on appeal by the appellants, the Additional Collector set aside the order of DOLR.
64 of 1994 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition filed by respondents 4 and 5 herein, is challenged questioning its validity.
The facts as numbericed in the order of the learned Single Judge are that a large number of persons had to loose their lands in execution of rent decrees on account of their failure to pay rent in respect of their holdings or have to abandon on account of vagaries of river Kosi.
