Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1398 (ALL)

RAMESHWAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-05-27

ARUN TANDON, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Land holdings of the petitioners before this Court was admittedly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act, 1894’) on 31.10.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 followed by notification dated 31.1.2002 under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 23.3.2002. 2. From the records of the present petition it is apparent that before the Award could be made in respect of the acquired land, the petitioner is stated to have entered into an Agreement with the respondent authority under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to as the ‘Rules, 1997’). In terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties, a compensation of Rs. 69,32,848/- was paid to the petitioner on 22.3.2002. This money is stated to have been accepted by the petitioner under protest. 3. The Award was made on 21.7.2002. Within one month of the said Award, the petitioners made an application wherein it was stated that they had been asked to sign/put thumb impression on certain blank papers by respondent authorities on the assurance that the money which is to be paid to them is only 80% of the total compensation as and when the Award is made, the remaining 20% shall also be paid to them. But after publication of the Award, the petitioners found that such assurance was false and that the money which has been received by them is being taken as the entire compensation. This according to the petitioner amounts to fraud and poor farmers like the petitioners have been deceived by the respondents in the matter of compensation. 4. The petitioners, therefore, made an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.8.2003 for a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. This application of the petitioners has been rejected under the impugned order dated 23.6.2008. 5. 4. The petitioners, therefore, made an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.8.2003 for a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. This application of the petitioners has been rejected under the impugned order dated 23.6.2008. 5. Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset stated that it is no doubt true that the persons who accept compensation in terms of the Rules, 1997 have no right to make any application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for a reference but where the payment of compensation is vitiated on the ground of fraud then such restriction in the making of the application for reference would not be applicable. It is his case that the Reference Application had to be granted by the officer concerned and it was for the competent Court to decide the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner qua the amount paid under the Rules, 1997 being vitiated because of fraud or not. Therefore, the order impugned is bad. 6. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the respondents disputes the correctness of the stand so taken. He submits that the petitioners had accepted the money in terms of the Agreement as early as on 22.3.2002. For fifteen months they kept silent and there was no protest in the matter of compensation so paid. It is only when the Award was made on 21.7.2003 that the petitioners have grown wiser and started claiming additional amount on a concocted story. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chander and others v. Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, 2003 (6) AWC 5222, for the proposition no application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 could be maintained by a person who had accepted the compensation under the Rules, 1997 without protest. He, therefore, submits that, in the facts of the case, there is no error in the order refusing to make the reference. 7. In support of the proposition he had also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others, 2005 (4) SCC 264 . 8. He, therefore, submits that, in the facts of the case, there is no error in the order refusing to make the reference. 7. In support of the proposition he had also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others, 2005 (4) SCC 264 . 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the present writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the legal position with regards to the person accepting compensation in terms of the Agreement under Rules, 1997 having no right to maintain a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is well-settled from the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent. But at the same time if there are allegation of fraud, what is the remedy available to the tenure holders? 9. We are of the considered opinion that in cases where execution of agreement under the Rules, 1997 is questioned on allegations of fraud, the application for reference need be entertained and referred to the Court concerned for examined at the first instance as to whether the agreement is vitiated by fraud or not. It is only when the first issue is answered in affirmative that the other questions namely adequacy of compensation to the petitioners can be gone into. If the first issue is answered in negative, the amount of compensation paid in terms of the agreement would be final and binding between the parties. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the order passed by the authority dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure-4 to the petition) cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. Let the petitioners make a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 within one month from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. The authority competent to hear the reference shall first adjudicate the issue as to whether the alleged agreement entered into between the parties under the Rules, 1997 is vitiated because of fraud or not. In case the answer to the said issue is in affirmative then the authority concern would proceed to hear the reference on merits. If the answer is in negative the chapter shall stand close and the application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 shall stand rejected accordingly. 11. In case the answer to the said issue is in affirmative then the authority concern would proceed to hear the reference on merits. If the answer is in negative the chapter shall stand close and the application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 shall stand rejected accordingly. 11. So far as the number of plots is concerned, we are not expressing any opinion. The parties are at liberty to agitate their claim in the reference application. 12. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction made herein above. ——————