Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 556 (HP)

BADRI SEN v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

2010-03-22

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Kinnuar at Rampur Bushahr, dated 28.9.2000, vide which he decided the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant has also mentioned that the present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the CPC, but the same does not lie and it has to be an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 1.8.1990, duly published on 14.8.1990, acquired land measuring 0-18-62 hectares in Jeori, Tehsil Rampur for a public purpose for ITBP i.e. respondent No.2. The land was acquired in accordance with the procedure and the Land Acquisition Collector entered into a reference, gave an award and determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.2,68,370/-. He also allowed solatium etc. as provided under the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation, in all, at Rs.4,54,494/-, payable to six petitioners in equal shares. 3. Petitioner No.1 Kailash Chand filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of other petitioners, including the present appellant Badri Sen. The reference petition was tried by the learned trial Court, who, vide the impugned award, held that the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation and all the petitioners, including the present appellant, were held entitled to the equal shares as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 4. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Badri Sen, one of the petitioners, claiming that the award is liable to be set aside being illegal and the appellant claimed that the compensation be enhanced to Rs.9.00 lac and that he is exclusively entitled to the whole amount being the exclusive owner of the land acquired by the State Government. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. In so far as the first point is concerned that the compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs.9.00 lacs, no infirmity has been pointed in the award passed by the learned trial Court in regard to the findings given under issue No.1. 6. In so far as the first point is concerned that the compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs.9.00 lacs, no infirmity has been pointed in the award passed by the learned trial Court in regard to the findings given under issue No.1. A perusal of the findings under Issue No.1 shows that the learned trial Court had considered the complete evidence led before it and had concluded that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was rather on higher side and it does not need to be enhanced accordingly. No infirmity, during the course of arguments, had been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, there is no occasion to reconsider the evidence, which had been discussed in full by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the findings under issue No.1 are liable to be affirmed and are affirmed accordingly and the same do not call for an interference by this Court. 7. In regard to the findings under Issue No.2, which was as to whether the appellant was exclusively owner with possession of the entire suit property and is entitled for the entire amount, as has been claimed by him in the reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Act, this plea had been taken by the appellant in the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act, which was preferred by petitioner No.1 Kailash Chand. Provisions of Section 30 of the Act reads as follows: “30. Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” 8. According to the above provision, the dispute as to apportionment has to be decided by the District Judge only when a reference has been made by the Collector on a plea raised under Section 30 of the Act. No specific plea was raised by the appellant under Section 30 of the Act and no reference was, therefore, made under Section 30 of the Act by the Collector to the Court of the District Judge. No specific plea was raised by the appellant under Section 30 of the Act and no reference was, therefore, made under Section 30 of the Act by the Collector to the Court of the District Judge. Once there was no reference under Section 30 of the Act made to the court of the District Judge by the Collector, as is required under the above provision of law, the dispute as to apportionment was not required to be decided by the Court of the District Judge. However, since the plea had been raised by the appellant in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court gave his findings under Issue No.2 after considering the evidence on record and the statements of the parties. 9. A perusal of the findings given under Issue No.2 clearly shows that the appellant Badri Sen had admitted the joint and undivided character of the land under acquisition. He also admitted to having applied for partition of the undivided holding including the land acquired by the State Government. Petitioner No.3 had also placed on record attested copy of the partition proceedings launched by the appellant for the partition of the joint and undivided holding including the land in question. Accordingly, the learned trial Court had concluded on the basis of this evidence that petitioner No.4 could not be treated as the sole owner of the land under the Act and as such, the findings were given that all the petitioners were entitled to the amount in equal share and those findings of the learned trial Court also do not call for an interference by this Court. In case the appellant is aggrieved by the said findings, he is at liberty to file a civil suit, if permitted under the law, and to claim the amount exclusively. For the present, all the petitioners are entitled to the amount and the amount shall be disbursed in their favour in equal shares. 10. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.