UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAROTTAMBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, has invoked Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution for an order to set aside the application dated 18.9.1991 of respondent No.1, under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) as also the draft award dated 17.7.2002 approved by the State Government. Admittedly, the land in question was acquired from respondent No.1 for the purpose of the petitioner for which notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.2.1981 and notification under section 6 was issued on 01.12.1984. Thereafter, award of compensation was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.4.1986 and some of the claimants had sought references under section 18 of the Act. Those reference cases were decided by learned Joint District Judge, Nadiad on 18.3.1991 whereby additional compensation of Rs.4.60 per sq. mtr. was awarded. First Appeals therefrom were filed in this Court wherein the petitioner was a party and those appeals were dismissed by this Court on 28.7.1999.

(2.) The second contention of learned counsel Mr.Shevade was that the petitioner was not served with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 28-A and that the petitioner was entitled to such notice as 'the person interested'. As against that, it was pointed out by learned A.G.P. that not only the correspondence referred hereinabove was addressed to the petitioner, but the petitioner's officers were themselves aware of the proceedings insofar as they were parties to the reference cases as well as the First Appeals which were filed in the High Court. Even as the draft award was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.6.2002, the petitioner was again informed by an urgent letter dated 07.9.2002, but the petitioner had all throughout insisted upon supplying of copies to them by respondent No.2. Ultimately, final award was made on 03.02.2004 calculating the total amount due to respondent No.1 to be Rs.1,10,600/-; and intimation thereof was sent to the petitioner by letter dated 05.02.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have submitted the present petition in November 2004 and moved it for the first time for admission in April 2005. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to relate the objections which the petitioner could have raised in the proceeding before the Collector and it was submitted in reply that the petitioner could have raised and established the objection regarding maintainability of the application under section 28-A in view of its late filing.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances briefly narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner did not have, all throughout, a valid objection to resist re-determination of the amount of compensation in accordance with section 28-A of the Act and the petitioner had consciously and actively desisted from participating in any proceeding before the Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent No.1 is admittedly an illiterate person and he even admitted on oath that he being an uneducated farmer and being ignorant about law, he had not filed application under section 28-A within 90 days. However, the benefit of proviso to section 28-A could not be denied to respondent No.1 on account of his ignorance about law and poor legal assistance that he could have availed. On the other hand, the petitioner, for whose benefit the land was acquired as early as in the year 1984, cannot be heard to contend that they could have only awaited replies and copies from respondent No.2 and could not have come forward to take the opportunity of hearing. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court clearly appears to have been invoked not for doing justice but for undoing justice inasmuch as respondent No.1 was and would have been entitled to the amount awarded by the impugned award, without any elaborate enquiry and even after affording to the petitioner a fuller opportunity of being heard, as expected by them. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the award and in view of the delay and the period intervening between making of the application under section 28-A and final hearing of the present petition, the following order is made, in the interest of justice.