Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 831 (ALL)

Union of India v. A. D. M. Land Acquisition

2019-04-03

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the applicants assisted by Sri Krishna Agrawal and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents assisted by Sri L.K. Singh and Sri Shiv Nath Singh. 2. On the basis of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with section 17(1) of the Act issued on 17.8.1998, acquisition was initiated and thereafter concluded on 18.2.1999 by the issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act. The award was thereafter made under section 11 of the Act on 10.3.2000. 3. The applicants in the instant Revision, who were the beneficiaries and wanted to get the rate of payment made in the award reduced, filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.30155 of 2001 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. The A.D.M. (L.A.), Kanpur Nagar & Ors.). The writ Court on 16.8.2007 relying upon the U.P. Act No.22 of 1954 directed the petitioners therein to file a Reference under the Act. When the Reference was filed in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the Reference Court rejected the same saying that since the amount of compensation awarded could not be lessened, the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act could not, therefore, be reduced in the Reference. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that since the U.P. Amendment 18 had provided for the filing of the Reference, the same was definitely maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when there was an order of the writ Court, then the Reference Court was bound by it. Learned counsel also relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath, (2011) 2 SCC 54 , submitted that where there was a wrong, there ought to be a remedy and submitted that the Reference Court could lessen the compensation awarded to the claimants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants, however, submitted that the amendment by the Parliament in section 25 of the Act, would have an overriding effect over the State Amendment. In this regard, he referred to Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which is being reproduced below :- "254. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants, however, submitted that the amendment by the Parliament in section 25 of the Act, would have an overriding effect over the State Amendment. In this regard, he referred to Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which is being reproduced below :- "254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States : (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.". 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further, relying upon a decision (Ram Piari & Anr. etc. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan & Ors., (1996) 3 JT 758 ), submits that an award which is made by the Collector is on behalf of the government and, therefore, neither the Government nor the beneficiary could go against the award of the Collector. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further, relying upon a decision (Ram Piari & Anr. etc. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan & Ors., (1996) 3 JT 758 ), submits that an award which is made by the Collector is on behalf of the government and, therefore, neither the Government nor the beneficiary could go against the award of the Collector. Since the learned counsel relied upon paragraph 5, the relevant portion of the same is being reproduced here as under : "..........It is settled law that the award made by the Collector is an offer made by him on behalf of the Government and the State is bound by the offer. While on reference under Section 18 or on appeal against the enhanced compensation under Section 54, the Court cannot reduce the compensation less than the offer made by the Collector. Therefore, the High Court while fixing the uniform rate of compensation to all the lands @ Rs.7100/- per bigha committed error of law in reducing the compensation to the lands classified by the Collector to be Kuhal and Katuhal lands for which compensation @ Rs.14,195/- and Rs.9,425/- per bigha respectively was offered. The High Court, therefore, in that perspective has committed error of law in reducing the compensation in respect of the above lands. Accordingly, the award of the Collector is restored in respect of the lands classified by him as Kuhal and Katuhal lands." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the Reference Court did not commit any error in passing the order as it was bound by the amendment incorporated in section 25 of the Act which was enacted by the Parliament on 24.9.1984. Further, I find that since the order as per the law reported in JT 1996 (3) SC 758 was to the effect that the award was on behalf of the Government, I definitely hold that the Revision could not be filed by the present applicants who were the beneficiaries. 8. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the Revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed.