Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2028 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. Union of India

2011-11-11

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, M.M.KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, J.:- The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of order dated 11.11.2009 (P-4) passed by respondent No. 4 and a further prayer has also been made that the dispute regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation be referred to the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 3H(4) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), pertaining to deposit and payment of amount of the land acquired under the provisions of the Act. 2. The pivotal question which arises for consideration in the instant petition is whether the Competent Authority constituted under Section 3(a) of the Act would be acting within its competence and jurisdiction by determining the dispute concerning possession and/or ownership of the acquired land. The issue would further be whether the power of the competent authority under sub-section (3) of Section 3-H of the Act extends to partition of the acquired land and disbursement of compensation in favour of one shareholder by issuing direction to the authority to adjust the area of the acquired land as and when partition is to take place. Another issue would be whether the Competent Authority is obliged to make a reference of the dispute to the District Judge under sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.8.2008 (P-1), the Union of India-respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 3A of the Act for acquisition of land alongside NH-1 from KM 412 plus 380 to KM 431 plus 300 (Jalandhar-Amritsar Section) in District Amritsar in the State of Punjab, including village Budha Theh (Beas) in Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (P-1). The land measuring 28 Kanals 3 Marlas was the subject matter of acquisition in the said village. Thereafter on 14.1.2009, another notification under Section 3D of the Act declaring to acquire land measuring 28 Kanals 3 Marlas as mentioned in the Schedule of the said notification (P-2). On 25.5.2009 (P-3), the Competent Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baba Bakala-respondent No. 3 announced the award fixing the price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,90,90,909/- per acre in respect of the land comprised in plots and at the rate of Rs.1,28,000/- per acre in respect of un-irrigated land. On 25.5.2009 (P-3), the Competent Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baba Bakala-respondent No. 3 announced the award fixing the price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,90,90,909/- per acre in respect of the land comprised in plots and at the rate of Rs.1,28,000/- per acre in respect of un-irrigated land. With regard to disbursement of compensation, it was provided under para 7 as under:- “(7) Disbursement of compensation under acquisition: Owners will be disbursed the compensation as per their share on latest jamabandi of their village. If any mutation is sanctioned during the process of acquisition same will be implemented. Any area under Mortgage, Mortgage money will be deducted from the owner’s compensation. If any dispute regarding the ownership of mutation comes up the compensation will be detained till the compromise between the parties of decision of the Competent Court take place.” 4. The claim of the petitioner is that he was entitled to the compensation of plot measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 77/21 Min. (0-5) and 78/25 Min. (0-19). However, on 22.10.2009, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baba Bakala-respondent No. 4 claiming themselves to be the only owner in possession of the land comprising in Khasra No. 77//21, 78//25, 78//16, 78//17, situated at village Budhatheh (Beas), Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. The demanded disbursement of the compensation in their favour. On 11.11.2009 (P-4), respondent No. 4 passed an order directing that the amount of compensation announced vide award dated 25.5.2009 be paid to respondent Nos. 5 to 7. It was further ordered that as and when partition of the joint Khata takes place then the area be deducted from the share of respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 11.11.2009 has been passed by respondent No. 4 in his capacity as Competent Authority designated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, which in fact required him to make a reference of the dispute for decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction i.e. District Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner has also submitted that in case of dispute the Competent Authority-respondent No. 4 could not have visited the spot to determine the possession and title of the parties which is only within the domain of the District Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner has also submitted that in case of dispute the Competent Authority-respondent No. 4 could not have visited the spot to determine the possession and title of the parties which is only within the domain of the District Judge, Amritsar. The Competent Authority could also not issue any direction to the revenue authorities for deduction of the share belonging to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 at the time of partition proceedings. It amounts to adjudication, which is the sole domain of the District Judge. 6. However, the stand taken by the opposite party is that the order has been passed under sub-section (3) of Section 3-H of the Act, which vests the Competent Authority like respondent No. 4 to determine the persons who were entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them in case several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3-H of the Act in order to determine which of the persons would be entitled. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 3-H(3) and (4) of the Act are somewhat similar to Sections 18 and 30 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the 1894 Act’). Likewise, Section 3A, Section 3C and Section 3D of the Act are similar to Sections 4, 5-A and Section 6 of the 1894 Act. There are further provisions like Section 3E and 3G of the Act which are equivalent to Sections 16 and 11 of the 1894 Act. 8. It is also an admitted fact that order dated 11.11.2009 (P-4), which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, has already been given effect to and the interest of the petitioner was required to be secured. Accordingly, on 3.3.2010 when the matter came up for consideration, this Court directed respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of compensation disbursed to them, to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge, Amritsar. Since the controversy between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is in respect of 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas of land only, therefore, on an application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of compensation disbursed to them, to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge, Amritsar. Since the controversy between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is in respect of 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas of land only, therefore, on an application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7, order dated 3.3.2010 was modified and they were required to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of compensation proportionate to 1 Kanal 4 Marlas of land, out of the total compensation disbursed to them, to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 16.7.2010. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the dispute in respect of Khasra Nos. 77//21 (0-5), 78//16 Min. (0-19), 17 Min. (1-6), 25 Min. (0-19), which are shown in the name of Nirmal Singh and others, who are stated to be the owner/interested persons, is referred to the learned District Judge, Amritsar, as he is a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in terms of Section 3H(4) of the Act. The learned District Judge shall decide the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation and the question as to who is entitled to receive the amount in whole or in part. The needful shall be done preferably within a period of six months from the date when the parties are appeared before the learned District Judge by providing three opportunities to each side. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Amritsar on 5.12.2011. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. -----------------