Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1277 (DEL)

NAND KISHORE v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-08-01

MUKUL MUDGAL, S.MURALIDHAR

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions challenge the Order dated 3. 1. 2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), North West, Khanjawala, Delhi, respondent No. 2. The said order reads as under:- Notice is issued and placed in file for Shri Om Prakash S/o Malkhan , Shri Nand Kishore and Brijesh R/o Ward Nmo. 15/05-6, Village Holambi Kalan , and the report is presented for necessary action. illegible 3. 1. 06 03. 01. Sd /- 2006 Present: 1. Shri Om Prakash -Claimant Shri R. S. Dalai Counsel for the Claimant. 13. Sh. Nand Kishore Tyagi -Objector. The objector requested a day's time for negotiated settlement. In case, there is no negotiated settlement, the parties shall back to compensation with LAC be further orders. List on 05. 01. 2006. Illegible 03. 01. 2006. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the above Order are that an Award No. 15/2005-06adc) NW was made by the LAC (NW) on 23. 9. 2005 in respect of lands measuring 1440 bigha 4 biswa in village Holambi Kalan, Delh. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein as well as Respondent No. 4 filed their claims before the LAC in respect of certain lands. The LAC has, in the Award, determined that a sum of Rs. 56,98,412. 87 is to be paid to Respondent No. 4 Om Prakash, son of Sh. Malkhan in respect of his 1/3 share in land bearing khasra Nos. 63 and 64, and further that a sum of Rs. 56,98,412. 87 to be paid to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of their 1/3 shares each in the aforementioned lands. The admitted position is that the aforementioned determined amounts were subsequently paid to the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 4. The petitioners herein on 26. 11. 2005 filed objections before the LAC stating that Respondent No. 4 Om Prakash should be paid compensation only for 3 bighas of acquired land and not for the 1/3 share of the land as determined in the Award. This objection appears to have been received by the LAC on 2. 1. 2006. The petitioners contend that without waiting for the reply on the said objection from the Respondent No. 4, the lac on 3. 1. 2006 passed the aforementioned order requiring both the parties to deposit the compensation paid to them. ( 3 ) MR. This objection appears to have been received by the LAC on 2. 1. 2006. The petitioners contend that without waiting for the reply on the said objection from the Respondent No. 4, the lac on 3. 1. 2006 passed the aforementioned order requiring both the parties to deposit the compensation paid to them. ( 3 ) MR. Varun Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 3. 1. 2006 passed by the LAC is vitiated in law in so far as it requires the petitioners to pay back the compensation received by them, particularly when neither Respondent No. 4 nor any other person has raised any objection as regards the petitioners' entitlement to compensation. He further submits that there was no power in the LAC to require the petitioners to pay back the compensation as a pre-condition to making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act) to the civil court for adjudication of the rival claims. ( 4 ) IN reply, Mr. R. P. Bansal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4, submits that very basis of the claim of the petitioners is flawed since the Sale Deed on which reliance is placed by the petitioners does not pertain to Khasra numbers that form part of the subject matter of the Award No. 15/2005-06. He further points out that there was an earlier award No. 18/2003-04 in respect of certain lands in village Holambi Kalan and that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Respondent No. 4 have already received the amounts payable as compensation under that award. He urged that the earlier award should not be confused with the present dispute between the parties which concerns only the latter award, viz. Award No. 15/2005-06. Sd /- ( 5 ) AT this stage, we may note that the learned counsel for the petitioners and Respondent No. 4 have stated that they are not disputing the fact that in respect of Award No. 18/2003-04, the Petitioner Nos. l and 2 and respondent No. 4 have received their respective compensation determined as payable under that Award and that the present dispute between the parties only pertains to the claims made in respect of lands covered by the award No. 15/2005-06 (DC) NW. l and 2 and respondent No. 4 have received their respective compensation determined as payable under that Award and that the present dispute between the parties only pertains to the claims made in respect of lands covered by the award No. 15/2005-06 (DC) NW. ( 6 ) IN the reply filed by the LAC in the present writ petition it is stated that LAC had no choice but to direct the parties to deposit back the entire compensation so that the dispute could be referred to the civil court as regards the apportionment in terms of Section 30 of the Act. Mr. Sanjay poddar, the learned counsel appearing for LAC, submits that no reference has yet been made to the civil court for adjudication of the dispute in terms of Section 30 of the Act. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that the appropriate course to be adopted, at this stage, would be to direct the LAC to hear the petitioners and Respondent no. 4 and take a decision on the objections filed by the Petitioner Nos. l and 2 herein. We do not wish to express any view on the contentions of the parties as recorded hereinabove, since we are of the view that the LAC will have to take a final decision on whether the matter requires to be referred to the civil court after examining the claims and objections of the parties. However, instead of requiring the parties to deposit back the compensation already received, we are of the view that each of the parties,. e. , petitioner Nos. l and 2 and Respondent No. 4, should file separate undertakings in the form of affidavit before this Court within three weeks from today stating therein that they would be prepared to deposit back such of the amount of compensation in respect of which the dispute is to be referred by the LAC , if at all, to the civil court under Section 30 of the Act. We make it clear that in respect of disputed claim amount, it will be open to the LAC to make a reference to civil court and seek deposit of the amount to that extent from the concerned parties who have been paid the amounts. We make it clear that in respect of disputed claim amount, it will be open to the LAC to make a reference to civil court and seek deposit of the amount to that extent from the concerned parties who have been paid the amounts. ( 8 ) A copy of the undertakings filed in this Court shall also be filed with the lac. The LAC will not proceed to decide the objections of the petitioners unless and until the undertakings are filed with this Court as directed above. The parties are directed to appear before the LAC on 29th August 2006. The impugned Order dated 3rd January 2006 will stand modified in terms of this Order. The writ petitions and the applications stand disposed of accordingly.