Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 558 (PNJ)

Jarnail Singh v. Food Corporation of India

2000-05-24

V.M.JAIN

body2000
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This order shall dispose of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners for setting-aside the order dated 28.11.1991 copy Annexure P-3, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government for the Food Corporation of India, vide notification dated 22.3.1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act") and that the Collector had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- ?) per acre which amount was enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 17,000/- per bigha in the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Some other persons, whose land had also been acquired, filed R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1984 in the High Court and the High Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 19,000/- per bigha. It was alleged that later on, the petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector for re-determination of the compensation. The said application was contested by the Food Corporation of India. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide order dated 28.11.1991, copy Annexure P-3, dismissed the said application of the petitioners. Aggrieved against this order of the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court, claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per bigha in respect of the acquired land of the petitioners. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before me that the petitioners were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per bigha and the Land Acquisition Collector had erred in law in dismissing the application of the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before me that in view of the law laid down by these Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Smt. Bhagti (deceased) through her LRs. 19,000/- per bigha and the Land Acquisition Collector had erred in law in dismissing the application of the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted before me that in view of the law laid down by these Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Smt. Bhagti (deceased) through her LRs. Jagdish Ram Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1997 Supreme Court 1793, the petitioners were not entitled to claim the same amount of compensation in the petition under Section 28A of the Act, as was awarded to other claimants in the appeals decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the petitioners were not entitled to claim the same amount of compensation which was awarded to the petitioners in R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1984 vide which the amount was enhanced from Rs. 17,000/- per bigha to Rs. 19,000/- per bigha. However, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to claim Rs. 17,000/- per bigha, being the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge in the petition under Section 18 of the Act. 6. In Smt. Bhagtis case (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under :- "Only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are conferred with the right to apply for redetermination under Section 28-A(1). But all those who had not only sought a reference under Section 18 but had also filed an appeal in the High Court against the awards made by the reference Court are not entitled to avail of the remedy under Section 28-A. Equally, the right and remedy of redetermination would be available only when the reference Court under Section 18, has enhanced the compensation in an award and decree under Section 26. Within three months from the date of the reference Court excluding the time taken under proviso, the applicant whose land was acquired under the same notification but who failed to avail the remedy under Section 18, would be entitled to avail the right and remedy under Section 28-A. The order and judgment of the High Court does not give such right. Section 28-A does not apply to an order made by the High Court for redetermination of the compensation." In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the petitioners would not be entitled to the amount of compensation as was awarded by this Court in R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1984 in appeal. However, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to claim the amount of compensation which was awarded in the reference under Section 18 of the Act. 7. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Collector had rejected the claim petition under Section 28A of the Act on the ground that the land was recorded in the ownership of Tarlok Singh and there was nothing on the record to show that Tarlok Singh was dead or that the petitioners were the legal heirs of Tarlok Singh. In the present revision petition, the petitioners have placed on record the death certificate pertaining to Tarlok Singh showing that Tarlok Singh died on 9.10.1985 and his death was registered on 14.10.1985 in the records of the Municipal Committee, Patiala, and on the basis thereof, the death certificate was issued by the Municipal Committee. The petitioners being the sons and widow of Tarlok Singh, deceased, would certainly be entitled to claim the compensation which was payable to Tarlok Singh. The petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground that the death certificate of Tarlok Singh was not available on the record or that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioners were not the legal heirs of Tarlok Singh, deceased. 8. Once it is found that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, which was payable to Tarlok Singh, deceased in equal shares, the present revision petition is disposed of with the direction that in case Tarlok Singh or his legal heirs had not filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act and had filed the petition only under Section 28A of the Act then the petitioners would be entitled to claim the same compensation as was awarded to the other similarly situated landowners in the reference under Section 18 of the Act by the Additional District Judge. However, in case Tarlok Singh and/or his legal heirs themselves had filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act, then whatever amount was awarded to them in the said petition, would be payable to them. It is further made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim the amount of compensation, which was assessed by this Court in appeal as claimed by the petitioners in the present petition. The present petition stands disposed of in the terms referred to above. No costs. Order accordingly.