GOVINDBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioners pray that the order rejecting their application to make reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act) passed by respondent No. 2-the Special Land Acquisition Officer Bharuch-be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 2 be directed to make reference to the appropriate Court under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) . Facts in brief be stated According to the petitioners they are tenants of land bearing block No. 89 admeasuring 6 acres and 27 gunthas of village Chavaj Taluka Bharuch District Bharuch According to a the petitioners respondent No. 3 i.e. Bharuch Panjrapole was the landlord. The said land was acquired pursuant to notification dated April 27 1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings culminated into award dated 26-4-1980 As per the award the petitioners have been awarded 25% of the amount of compensation and respondent No. 3 has been awarded 75 of the amount 46 of compensation After the award was declared the petitioners applied to respondent No. 2 i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer Bharuch for making reference under Section 30 of the Act to 45 the appropriate court for determination of the correct apportionment of the amount of compensation Be it noted that the application was only for apportionment of the amount and not for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The application has been rejected by respondent No. 2 as per order dated. September 27 1990 produced at Annexure C to the petition. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition.

(3.) . While rejecting the application it is inter alia stated in the order that the applicants had not remained present on the dates fixed for hearing and that the amount of compensation was determined with the consent of the acquiring body Pursuant to the consent consent award was passed on April 26 1990 While deciding the application for reference under Section 30 of the Act even if the applicants are not present on the date of hearing the Collector is not absolved of his duty to decide the application on merits. Whether the award has been passed with consent of the acquiring body or not is not a relevant circumstance inasmuch as the application for reference is not for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore this cannot be a relevant circumstance for rejecting the application Similarly the reason that the amount of compensation was paid to the applicants directly by the acquiring body only balance amount of 10% of the compensation was paid at the time of declaration of the award and when the amount was paid no objection was raised also is not a relevant circumstance. This is so because the reference sought is not with regard to enhancement of compensation but it is only with regard to apportionment of compensation. The ground that since the amount of compensation was already paid and the proceedings under the Act were concluded is not a ground on which application under Section 30 of the Act could be rejected. It may be noted that for submitting application under Section 30 of the Act no time limit is prescribed under the Act.