VALLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vallicode Grama Panchayat, who is the requisitioning authority in a land acquisition proceedings, is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Petitioner filed a requisition before the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, for acquisition of 1 Acre 22 cents of dry land in Survey No.256/2 of Vallicode Village, for the purpose of launching a water supply scheme for the benefit of the Panchayat. The land was acquired. The claimant filed a petition under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), but it was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. In the meanwhile, certain other persons whose lands were also acquired for the same purpose, filed petitions under S.18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Sub Court, and numbered as LAR No.3/2004. In that case, the petitioner got itself impleaded as additional defendant. The matter was decided after hearing the Land Acquisition Officer, as well as the petitioner/local authority. That judgment was pronounced on 27.11.2006. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition under S.28A of the Act praying that in view of the Judgment in LAR No. 3/2004, the compensation awarded to them may be redetermined. The Land Acquisition officer issued notice to those persons along and redetermined that compensation. Challenging that decision, this Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) One and only ground on which the Grama Panchayat seek the relief of setting aside the award passed under S.28A of the Act is that it was not heard. Ext. P1 judgment produced by respondents 3 to 5 shows that in that also, Vallicode Grama Panchayat got itself impleaded as additional claimants and contested the matter. It is submitted by Sri. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that challenging the decree and judgment passed in LAR No. 3/2004, the local authority has filed appeal as LAA No. 1753/2007, with a petition to condone the delay, and that matter is still pending before this Court. So, the question arising for consideration is whether the petitioner Grama Panchayat has a right to be heard while awarding compensation under S.28A of the Act. In UPA was Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 724 , a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had considered the locus standi of the requisitioning authority, and held as follows:

(3.) In WP (C) No. 34818/2007 and connected matter, I have already issued certain directions. One of the direction was that from the stage of notification under S.4 of the Act itself, copy shall be given to the authority for whom the land is acquired. Even if it is a Government Department, notice shall be given to it, at the time of S.6(1) declaration, award notice etc. If any of the claimants flies a petition under S.18, 28A or 28A(3) of the Act, the Claimant themselves should implead the requisitioning authority. If the requisitioning authority is not made a party, the Land Acquisition Officer shall return such application to the person who has filed the same for curing the defect and to re - present the same, within a time limit, either two weeks or one month. If the claimants cure the defect and re - present the application within the time allowed, that application shall be treated as one filed on the date of initial filing. There will be a further direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to acknowledge the receipt of the applications, as provided in R.16A and return the third copy to the petitioner who filed the same with the necessary endorsement as provided in R.16A(3) of the Rules.