Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 936 (RAJ)

Jalam S/o Mana v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-06

JAGAT SINGH

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - All these matters are identical factually and legally and their arguments have also been advanced jointly, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Agriculture lands of these petitioners have been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, PWD Circle I, Udaipur for Kankroli Bypass. Preliminary awards have also been issued in favour of these petitioners and amount of preliminary award has been withdrawn by these petitioners. Further, after complying with the acquisition proceedings, final award was passed subsequently. A notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 was given to these petitioners with regard to passing of the final award. Final award was challenged by these petitioners by way of a reference and a request was made to the Land Acquisition Officer to forward reference to the civil Court. However, the Land Acquisition Officer by the impugned order, refused to make reference. Hence, these petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners while relying upon Apex Court pronouncement in State of Gujarat v. Dayan Shyamji Bhai, (1996) 1 SCC 133, submitted that where the owner has been paid compensation in terms of award, they are entitled to make reference. 4. In the matter at hand, the amount of interim award has been received with the hope that final award will be made keeping in view prevalent market value of the land. As soon intimation of final award was given to the petitioners under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, they raised dispute before the Land Acquisition Officer and requested him to make reference to the civil Court, which was refused without sufficient reasons. The ground of refusal was that on the application, Court-fee has not been paid whereas there is no such requirement of paying any Court-fee on the reference. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kashi Ram Namdeo Janara v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1995 (8) SC 197 has held accordingly. The Land Acquisition Officer could not have refused the reference on flimsy grounds, causing miscarriage of justice. 5. Consequently, these petitions are accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to proceed according to law. He shall do it as expeditiously as possible, within 3 months of the receipt of this order.Petition allowed. *******