JAI KISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner claims to be the Bhuimidaar/exclusive owner of l/4th share of the total agricultural land to the extent of 1/5th share in KhasraNos. 37/9,10,38/6,7 Min. 37/11,12, 19,38/14,15,2/24 measuring about 55 bigha situated within the revenue estate of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi. They claim to be in possession of the land for a long time and due entries in that regard exist in the Khasra Girdwari which has also been placed on record. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 27.1.2003 for acquisition of the land including the above land of the petitioner, in furtherance to which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.1.2004. Award bearingNo. 15/2005-06/DC/N W dated 23.8.2005 was made by the Collector awarding compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 12,60,000/-. The petitioner claims the amount of compensation in his own right and stated that there is some dispute in that regard with respondent No. 4 who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he does not have good relations with his son and daughter-in-law as they are involved in criminal activities and various FIRs have been registered against them. The petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of compensation to which respondent No. 4 filed objections on 4.1.2006 and claimed apportionment of the awarded compensation. Despite their being specific contest by the parties and the fact that respondent No. 4 was not entitled to any compensation in accordance with the plea taken by the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the following order:

(2.) This order has been challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner as according to his contention he is the recorded Bhumidar and is entitled to receive the entire compensation and there is no bonafide or genuine dispute in that regard. Respondent No. 4 has no interest in the property, as such the reference is not proper and valid and in any case it is non-speaking. While referring a matter to the Court of competent jurisdiction, the Collector exercises powers which are to some extent determinative in nature and substance. He has to give a reasonable conclusion that there are disputes in regard to apportionment of the awarded compensation. Such disputes could be with regard to apportionment, or any part thereof, or even persons to whom such compensation is payable. This process cannot be termed as an 'administrative or routine action'. The parties have a right to be heard and the Collector is obliged to pass an order which at the face of it shows application of mind, particularly when the correctness of such an order can be questioned in a writ petition before the High Court. Now, it is a settled principle of law that even in administrative action the authorities are required to pass proper orders in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Absence of any reason, whatsoever, would offend the basic rule of law so would violation of principles of natiral justice. Compliance to the provisions of natural justice is an in-built essential of basic rule of law. Even under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, before making a declaration, the Collector is expected to decide the objections filed by the claimants under Section 5 A after hearing and by a reasoned order. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Chatro Devi v. Union of India and Ors., 2005 (Vol.120) Delhi Law Times 9 where the Court held as under:

(3.) Even if passing of an order under Section 5A is taken to be an administrative act, still it has repeatedly been held by the Courts that such orders should be a reasoned one. Reasons are the soul of a quasi-judicial or even administrative order, which has the effect of vesting the parties with civil consequences, material or otherwise. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment in the case Dr. Sudha Suri v. Union of India & Ors., 2002( 1) PLR 453 where the Court held as under: