S BARROW Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and may conveniently be disposed of together.

(2.) The petitioner in both the cases is the same. He owned certain lands in villages Bhilawan and barha in the District ot Luck-now. The Collector of the District decided to requisition ami then to acquire portions of his land in the two villages. The Collector of Lucknow accordingly issued notices under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, U. P. Act No. 26 of 1948. This Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that if, in the opinion of the State Government or such other authority as the State Government may appoint in that behalf, it is necessary or expendient to requisition the land for purposes of erection of houses, shops or workshops for the renabitration of the refugees, the State Government or the appointed authority, as the case may be, muy by order requisition any land by serving on the owner and occupier thereof a notice stating that the State Government or the appointing authority has decided to requisition it in pursuance of this section. The notices were duly issued and served on the petitioner, and it is not denied that the notices were issued by proper authority. Subsequently on the 5th March, 1953, notices were issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act stating that the Collector had decided to acquire the land in pursuance of the sub-section. The petitioner is not disputing the correctness of the requisition or the acquisition and the only point in dispute is the amount of compensation to which he was entitled under Section 11 of the Act. This section provides that where any land is acquired under Section 9, there shall be paid compensation to the owner, the amount of which snail be determined by the Compensation Officer in accordance with the principles set out in clauses first, second and third of Sub-section (1) and of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There are then two provisos added to the sub-section and the first of them is important and may be quoted in full. It says,

(3.) Consequently, when the proceedings lor the determination of compensation were taken, the Land Acquisition Oarcer (who was seized of the matter), calculated compensation according to the market value on the date of the acquisition under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and ignored the two provisos of the Rehapilitation of Refugees Act. On the 19th May, 1955, be gave an award fixing a sum of Rs. 68,749-9-0 as compensation for the land acquired in village Bnillawan and Rs. 56,516-14-0 as compensation lor the land acquired in village Barha. Tne petitioner, it appears, was not satisfied with the awards and on the 27th June 1955, ho filed two applications under Section 11(3) of the Act for reference of the matter to Court, that is the District Judge. On the 13th September 1955, the State Government made an application to the Land Acquisition Officer for review of his previous order on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer had ignored the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, which had included the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act in the 9th Schedule, the result of which was that the two provisos had been validated and compensation should have been determined according to the value of the land as it was on the 1st September 1939. They followed up this application, on the 21st September 1955, by another under Section 11(3) of the Act, praying for the reference of the case to Court. The petitioner filed objections to the review application on the 24th September 1955, and the main ground taken was that the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to review his previous order. The Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order on the 18th October 1955, allowing the application for review and directing notice to be issued to the petitioner for adducing such evidence as he might be advised for purposes of assessing the market value of the land, as it existed on the first day of September 1939. The present petitions were then moved in this Court on the 24th November 1955, praying for the issue of a writ of cortiorari summoning the record of the Compensation Officer and quashing his order dated the 18th October 1955. It was also prayed that the Land Acquisition Officer be directed to make a reference to the Court, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act.