Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 335 (HP)

ACHAR SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-09-12

V.M.JAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking the setting aside the order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Col Dam, Bilaspur, (HP), refusing to make a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that the State of Himachal Pradesh had acquired some land for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of Kol Hydro Power Project in village Harhoda Tehsil . Sadar District Bilaspur. In pursuance of the acquisition of the said land by the State, the Land Acquisition Collector started proceedings for assessing the compensation to be paid to be the land owners for the acquired land. At that stage, the present petitioners had filed petitions under Section 9 of the Act, alleging therein that infect they were entitled to compensation for the acquired land and not the persons who were recorded as owners of the acquired land in the revenue record. After hearing both the sides, the Land Acquisition Collector declined the petitions filed by the present petitioners under Section 9 of the At. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court, bearing CMPMO No. 22 of the 2004. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide dated 4.1.2005 dismissed the said petition, with the following observations: "The petitioners are not debarred from agitating their rights to the title of the acquired land and apportionment of the amount of compensation under Sections 30 and 31 of the act against the award made by the Collector. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 8.1.2004 does not warrant interference in these proceedings as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them under the Land Acquisition Act." 3. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the petitioners filed petition under Section 30 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment of compensation in respect of the acquired land, giving particulars of the land by way of schedule, regarding which the petitioners were seeking apportionment of compensation. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the petitioners filed petition under Section 30 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector for apportionment of compensation in respect of the acquired land, giving particulars of the land by way of schedule, regarding which the petitioners were seeking apportionment of compensation. The petitioners also filed separate application under Section 31(2) of the Act, alongwith aforesaid application under Section 30 of the Act and prayed therein that the payment of compensation to the private respondents be stayed and the compensation amount be deposited in the Reference Court under Section 31(2) of the Act while making a reference as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide order dated 19.4.2005, dismissed the aforesaid applications under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act, refusing to make reference to the District Judge, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. 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, seeking the quashment of the aforesaid order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and also seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Act to the District Judge, Bilaspur. The petition was contested by the respondents by filing a reply. 4. During the pendency of petition, an application; bearing CMP No. 270 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on behalf of the1 petitioners, for impleading Govind Ram etc, as respondents No.4 to 10 in the present petition. In the meanwhile, another application, bearing CMP No. 277 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Govind Ram etc for being impleaded as respondents in The main petition. They also filed amended memo. Of parties and also filed reply to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the applicants Govind Ram etc. may be allowed and they are impleaded as respondents in the petition especially when even the petitioners had also sought to implead them as respondents. may be allowed and they are impleaded as respondents in the petition especially when even the petitioners had also sought to implead them as respondents. Hence, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, bearing CMP No. 277 of 2005, is allowed and the applicants Govind Ram etc, are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No.4 to 7 in the main petition. The amended memo. Of parties filed by the applicants Govind Ram etc, is taken on the record. The office shall place the same in the file at the appropriate place. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the other application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, bearing CMP NO. 270 of 2005, may be dismissed as not pressed1 in view of the fact that application of Govind Ram etc. impleading them as respondents No.4 to 7 in the main petition has since been allowed and they have been impleaded as respondents No.4 to 7 in the main petition. Accordingly, application bearing No. CMP No. 270 of 2005 is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Coming now to the main case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since a dispute had arisen with regard to the apportionment of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of the persons to whom the compensation amount or a part thereof is payable, the Land Acquisition Collector was required to refer the said dispute to the District Judge for decision, as required under Section 30 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi v. Union of India and others (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases page-408 and Sriprasada Rao Mikkilineni and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2000 (9) Supreme Court Cases 371. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly added respondents No.4 to 7 submitted before me that no case was made out for directing the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the dispute to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the law laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and others 2003(3) Supreme Court Cases page-128. Reliance was placed on the law laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and others 2003(3) Supreme Court Cases page-128. Reference as also made to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Bhaskar Pathara and others v. State of Maharashtra and others 1995 Supp.2) Supreme Court Cases page 748. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector must be set aside and a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference under Section 30 read with Section 31(2) of the Act to the District Judge, Bilaspur. 9. The petitioners were claiming compensation in respect of the acquired land on the ground that their ancestors were owners of the land in dispute and that they had never sold the same to the ancestors of the private respondents and yet on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents, the ancestors of private respondents had got their names recorded in the revenue record showing them as the owners of the land in dispute and that the petitioners were not bound by the same and that the petitioners continued to be the owners of the acquired land. On the other hand, the private respondents were claiming compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of the ownership and also the revenue records showing them as the owners of the acquired land. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, a dispute had arisen between the petitioners and the private respondents on the question as to whether the petitioners were entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the acquired land and if so to what extent. In this view of the matter, the Land Acquisition Collector was duty bound to refer the dispute to the District Judge under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Act rather than adjudicating upon the dispute himself and declining to make the reference vide order dated 19.4.2005. 10. It may also be relevant here at this stage to refer to the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by this Court while dismissing the earlier petition CMPMO No. 22 of 2004 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners. 10. It may also be relevant here at this stage to refer to the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by this Court while dismissing the earlier petition CMPMO No. 22 of 2004 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners. As referred to above, while dismissing the said petition, it was held by this Court that the petitioners were not debarred from agitating their rights to the title of the acquired land the apportionment of the amount of compensation under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act against the award made by the Collector. This Court had declined to interfere with the earlier order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dismissing the petition of the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act, observing that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy available to them under the Act. 11. In view of the order dated 4.12005 passed by this Court, in my opinion, that Land Acquisition Collector was duty bound to make reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act to the District Judge, on the petition filed by the petitioners, rather than adjudicating upon the dispute himself and holding that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any part of the compensation. In 1996(6) SCC 408(Supra), the Honble Supreme Court was considering the proper procedure to be adopted as to the title of the land acquired under the Act. After considering the various provisions of the Act, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if the Land Acquisition Collector found that that there is any dispute as to the persons entitled to receive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under Section 31 of the Act into the Court, to which reference would lie and on such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute between the competing persons who had set up rival title to the compensation. It was further held that under those circumstances the only legal course open was that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 30 of the Act, to decide the inter se title to receive compensation amount and the reference Court would decide the matter in accordance with law. It was further held that under those circumstances the only legal course open was that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 30 of the Act, to decide the inter se title to receive compensation amount and the reference Court would decide the matter in accordance with law. Similarly in 2000 (9) Supreme Court Cases 371 (Supra) it was found by the Honble Supreme Court that there was a dispute about the title in respect of the acquired land Accordingly, it was held that it was a fit case where the High Court should have directed the Land Acquisition Officers to make reference under Section 30 of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collection was set aside and he was directed to make reference under Section 30 of the Act to the appropriate Court. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid authorities, in my opinion, the only course open to the Land Acquisition Collector, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, was to make reference to the District Judge, as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, for determination of the person entitled to receive the compensation amount and the extent thereof. 13. So far as the authority 2003(3) SCC 128(Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the private respondents is concerned, in my opinion, a perusal of the said authority would show that in fact that said authority does not help the private respondents in any manner whatsoever, and in fact even in this authority, the Honble Supreme Court has taken a similar view as has been taken in the authorities of the Honble Supreme Court already referred to above, in respect of the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference to the District Judge under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Act in case of a dispute about the persons entitled to receive the compensation amount. So far as the authority 1995 Suppl. So far as the authority 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 748 (Supra), also referred to by the learned counsel for the private respondents is concerned, in my opinion, the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the said authority would have no application to the facts of the present case and even this authority will be of no help to the private respondents. 14. In view of the detailed discussion above, the present petition is allowed, Order dated 19.4.2005, Copy Annexure P-1, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Col Dam, Bilaspur (HP) is hereby set aside and a direction is issued to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned to refer the dispute to the concerned District Judge, as required under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.