BARU MAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to narrate all the allegations made in the affidavit, the counter-affidavit, the supplementary affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit filed in this case. For the purposes, of the decision of this petition the following admitted facts alone are material:

(2.) The petitioners were the owners of certain plots of land measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas situated in the Civil Lines of the town of Muzaffarnagar. On the request of the respondent No. 4 the District Exhibition Committee, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter called the Committee), proceedings for acquiring the plots mentioned above were started and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued, and proceedings for payment of compensation were also started. The Land Acquisition Officer, who in this particular case is not the Collector and District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar but a Deputy Collector, held an enquiry under Section 11 of the Act and not only prepared but also signed an award. Purporting to act under section 12 (2) of the Act as amended by U. P. as also under paras 430 and 497 of the Manual of Government Orders of U. P. in the Revenue Department, the Land Acquisition, Officer sent a copy of the award to the Land Reforms Commissioner, U. P., and a letter to the Tahsildar, Muzffarnagar, who is the ex-officio Secretary of the Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) directing him to deposit Rs. 18,000 and odd as the cost of the land in dispute. The Secretary wrote back to the Land Acquisition Officer saying that the amount was excessive and should be reduced. The Land Reforms Commissioner, U. P., also asked the Land Acquisition Officer to review his award and to reduce the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners. At first the Land Acquisition Officer wrote back saying that the petitioners had filed copies of sale deeds from which it was apparent that adjoining plots of land had been sold at the rate of Rs, 3/8/-to Rs. 12/- per square yard whereas compensation had been awarded to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1/4/- per square yard only and further that no evidence had been produced on behalf of the respondent No. 4 which could have thrown any light on the value of the petitioners' land which was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer also pointed out that in some cases in the vicinity of the land in dispute land had been sold at the rate of Rs. 40/- to Rs. 56/per square yard. That did not however satisfy the Land Reforms Commissioner who persisted in asking the Land Acquisition Officer to reframe the award with the result that the Land Acquisition Officer yielded and gave an altogether fresh award dated 24-12-1957 drastically reducing the amount of compensation.

(3.) . The only two questions that require consideration in this case are, firstly, whether after having given his award but before it was filed under Section 12 of the Act, it was open to the Land Acquisition Officer to review or revise the earlier award and substitute it by a completely fresh one and, secondly, whether he could do so on the instructions of the Land Reforms Commissioner or at the request of the Secretary. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that no other question is involved in the case.