Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1642 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Sukhdev Singh

2012-11-22

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: (Oral) - The first and second defendants, namely, the State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa and Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Water Services Division, Sirsa have preferred the present second appeal challenging the mandates issued to them to consider the case of the plaintiff praying for compensation of the left out land measuring 13 kanals 4 marlas in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The unfortunate plaintiff preferred to file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Addl. District Judge, Sirsa only with respect to his land measuring 13 kanals 14 marlas leaving inadvertently the remaining land of 13 kanals 4 marlas out of the total extent of 26 kanals 18 marlas acquired from him. The reference Court, namely, the Addl.District Judge, Sirsa, of course, passed the award on 11.9.1997 enhancing the compensation from Rs.1 lac per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award passed by him on 1.2.1994 to Rs.1.38 lacs per acre. The plaintiff having come to know that the remaining extent of land, namely, 13 kanals 4 marlas had not been included in the reference by inadvertence filed an application under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for correction of the extent of land found mentioned in the reference filed by him before the reference Court. The reference Court took up the matter for hearing on 5.6.1998 and dismissed the same as it had felt that it had become functus officio after passing the necessary award on 11.9.1997 within the ambit of the extent of land referred to in the reference by the plaintiff. The plaintiff invoking the provision under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed a fresh application before the Land Acquisition Collector to determine the compensation for the remaining extent of land, namely, 13 kanals 4 marlas which was not the subject matter of the original reference. True it is that the plaintiff had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing such an application beyond the period of three months as contemplated under the aforesaid provision of law, but the Land Acquisition Collector was pleased to take up the application on merit and dismissed it with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for suitable remedies. The plaintiff having been pushed from pillar to post again approached the Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make payment of enhanced compensation with respect to the remaining extent of land which was acquired. 3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court having held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the legal right canvassed before it by the plaintiff. The State, not content with the verdict passed by the trial Court, took up the matter in appeal before the first appellate Court. The appellate Court chose to confirm the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State would vehemently contend referring to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that the application again moved by the plaintiff before the Land Acquisition Collector was barred by limitation inasmuch as the said application was not filed within three months from the date of award passed by the reference Court enhancing the compensation. It is his further submission that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with any matter concerning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that both the Courts have returned a well considered verdict rejecting the plea that there was no jurisdiction for the Civil Court to decide the lis. 6. It is an unfortunate case where the State has taken a decision not to maintain parity in the matter of payment of compensation. The State was pleased to abide by the decision of the reference Court with respect to 13 kanals 14 marlas of land acquired by the Government from the plaintiff, but refused to pay enhanced compensation for the remaining extent of land of the plaintiff which was acquired by it in terms of the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference Court. Super-technical approach has been adhered to by the State to deprive the plaintiff from getting the enhanced compensation due and payable to him. 7. On facts, it is found that the plaintiff by inadvertence had not given the entire extent of land acquired from him while filing a reference before the reference Court invoking the provision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. On facts, it is found that the plaintiff by inadvertence had not given the entire extent of land acquired from him while filing a reference before the reference Court invoking the provision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. There was no mala fide intention on the part of the plaintiff for not giving the entire extent of land acquired from him in the reference he filed seeking enhancement of compensation. In all fairness, it will have to be be construed that by inadvertence he had not come out with the entire extent of land which was acquired by Government while seeking enhancement of compensation. Realizing such a folly, the plaintiff approached the very same reference Court to permit him to correct the extent of land, but the same was dismissed. 8. The Land Acquisition Collector infact entertained an application moved again by the plaintiff with reference to remaining extent of land measuring 13 kanals 4 marlas seeking enhancement of compensation, but refused to grant the relief. While passing such an order the Land Acquisition Collector directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for suitable remedy. 9. Though it is true that the plaintiff had not filed any application to condone the delay in preferring again an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the very fact that the Land Acquisition Collector had entertained the said application would leave an inference that the Land Acquisition Collector had infact excused the delay in filing such an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is to be noted that there is no comment by the Land Acquisition Collector that the application again filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, when the Land Acquisition Collector had failed to exercise the jurisdiction and passed the buck to the Civil Court, the Civil Court is competent to decide the legal right canvassed and agitated before it. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that there is no specific provision under the Land Acquisition Act debarring the Civil Court to entertain such a suit. Therefore, in my considered view, the Courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction to decide the legal right canvassed before it. 10. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that there is no specific provision under the Land Acquisition Act debarring the Civil Court to entertain such a suit. Therefore, in my considered view, the Courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction to decide the legal right canvassed before it. 10. After all the Courts below had not determined the enhanced compensation sought for by the plaintiff on par with the enhanced compensation already granted and awarded by the reference Court. Modifying the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff, the Courts below have directed the appellants herein to consider the legitimate claim made by the plaintiff for enhancement of compensation and decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. I do not find any error in the judgements passed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law has also been arisen in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed.