HARMINDER SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service, respondents have not appearedthis matter. Since the matter is short, we issue rule, D.B. and proceed to disposethe same.

(2.) By invoking urgency clause contained in Section 17 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), property of the petitioner was acquired throughnotification issued under Sections 4,6 and 17 of the Act on 27.7.1984 and withindays after the publication the petitioners were dispossessed. It is the petitioneicase that without serving any notice on them and in their absence award was macon 7.3.1985. It was neither filed in the office of the Collector, Land Acquisition norhad they any knowledge about the same. After making of the award, no notice;is required under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act was issued. It was in themonth of June/July 1985 that petitioners acquired knowledge that some award hadbeen made by the Collector. It was only an intimation received by them of makingan award and not about the particulars thereof. It is also their case that anapplication thereafter was made by them for realizing the amount of compensationand ultimately the Collector, Land Acquisition paid the amount of compensationto them which was received underprotest and immediately thereafter on 16.10.1985an application under Section 18 of the Act was made seeking reference to the Courtfor determination of the amount of compensation. Since petitioner received theamount of compensation under protest and did not accept the award, referenceought to have been made for which a prayer was made within limitation from thedate of knowledge. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India petitioners are seeking directions against respondent No. 1 for making thereference in accordance with law to the Court for determination of amount ofcompensation, since more than eight years have passed and reference has not beenforwarded.

(3.) The aforementioned submissions of the petitioners made in the writpetition are duly supported on the affidavit of Harminder Singh, one of thepetitioners. A copy of the application under Section 18 of the Act has beenappended to the writ petition. Since despite service, the respondents have failedto put in appearance and oppose this writ petition, there is no option except to takethe averments made in the petition to be correct, for the purpose of deciding thiswrit petition.