ISHWAR SINGH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the legality of an award No. 1/2007-08 made by the Collector, land Acquisition primarily on the ground that the Collector has not, while determining the compensation payable to the land owners, conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 11 of the Act or properly applied his mind to the material available on record. The respondents have appeared to oppose the petitions and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability thereof. It is contended on their behalf that the petitioners have, during the pendency of these writ petitions, got proper references made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of the compensation payable to them. The question whether and if so what enhancement in the amount awarded by the Collector is deserved by the petitioners therefore falls for consideration in the said references making it unnecessary for a writ court to examine the same issue in parallel proceedings. Two issues that, therefore, fall for consideration of this Court are:

(2.) TIME now to state in brief the factual background in which the above questions fall for determination:

(3.) A preliminary notification dated 4th November, 2004 notified a large extent of land measuring nearly 2000 bighas for the public purpose of building what is described as 'sub City Dwarka Phase-II'. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on 31st October, 2005. The Award No. 1/2007-08 dated 6th august, 2007 made by the Collector held the land owners entitled to compensation @ Rs. 15. 70 lacs per acre relying upon a notification issued by the Government fixing the minimum price for agricultural land at the said rate. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions as noticed earlier in which their primary grievance is that the Collector had, while determining the amount of compensation and making the award, neither held any enquiry as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act nor applied his mind to the objections and the claims made by the petitioners-land owners. The petitioners in particular referred to a notification dated 16th October, 2000, a copy whereof has been produced as Annexure-P6 to the writ petition in support of the submission that the Collector had, in ignorance of the same, proceeded to determine the amount of compensation on the assumption that the land in question continued to be agricultural land. The notification referred to above had, however, changed the land use which implied that the land in question had acquired non-agricultural potential. It was contended by Mr. Mann that the collector fell in palpable error in ignoring the notification and proceeding on an assumption which was not justified in the light of the change brought about by the notification. It was also contended by Mr. Mann that the Collector was duty bound to hold a proper enquiry into the claims of the land owners while determining the compensation and that the absence of any such enquiry clearly showed that he had failed to discharge his statutory functions in tune with the spirit underlying the legislation. Reliance in support was placed by Mr. Mann upon the decision of the five judges bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Repaka Bhyaravamurthy v. Muppidi Venkataraju 2001 (2) LACC 379. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Mann upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prosad v. State of West Bengal AIR 1971 SC 465 and Bailamma v. Poornaprajna House building Co-operative Society AIR 2006 SC 1132 in support of his submission that the Collector was duty bound to hear the land owners in support of their objections before making his award under Section 11.