MAHESH CHAND GUPTAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners which had been determined under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The affidavits filed by the parties show that three persons, namely, Ram Singh, Mahendra Singh and Hukum Singh were tenureholders of plot Nos. 351, 358, 360/4 and 361/3 of village Gailana Mustquil, pargana Sadar, district Agra. The aforesaid plots along with number of other plots were acquired by the State of U. P, for the purpose of construction of 400 Kv. Sub-Station by the U. P. State Electricity Board. The Notifications under Section 4 (1) and Section 6 of the Act read with Section 17 were published in the Gazette on 17.4.1982. The possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 21.7.1982. The S.L.A.O, in L.A. Case No. 19 of 1982 made an award under Section 11 of the Act on 24.6.1986. One of the co-owners of the plots, namely. Ram Singh who had l/3rd share. executed a sale deed of his existing rights in favour of Gopal Singh, Sobaran Singh and Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1986 and the sale deed was registered on 23.12.1986. The compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Case No. 19 of 1982 was then paid to Gopal Singh, Sobaran Singh and Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu on 9.1.1987, it appears that one Ram Chandra Gupta, whose plot No. 404 had been acquired under the same Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act but in whose case award had been made by the S.L.A.O, on 20.5.1987, made an application to the Collector for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Collector made a reference and it was registered as L.A. Case .No. 271 of 1987 and this was decided by IXth Additional District Judge, Agra, by the Judgment and award dated 31.3.1990. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 45 per sq. yard as awarded by S.L.A.O, to Rs. 115 per sq. yard. Thereafter Gopal Singh and Sobaran Singh (but not Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu, who was a co-vendee in the sale deed dated 10.11.1986) executed a sale deed of their rights in favour of Ram Swaroop Sharma and Ram Kumar Sharma (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4) on 31.5.1990. Gopal Singh and Sobaran Singh executed another sale deed of their rights in favour of Mahesh Kumar Gupta and R. K. Agrawal (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) on 27.4.1991. Gopal Singh. Sobaran Singh and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 28A of the Act before the S.L.A.O. Agra on 11.6.1990 stating that plot No. 404 belonging to Ram Chandra Gupta had been acquired by means of the same Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act and in his case, compensation amount had been enhanced by the judgment and award dated 31.3.1990 of IXth Additional District Judge, Agra in L.A. Case No. 271 of 1981 and, therefore, the compensation be redetermined with regard to plot Nos. 351, 358/2. 360/4 and 361/3, which right they had obtained by virtue of the sale deed in their favour. The S.L.A.O, then wrote a letter dated 4.9.1990 to the Executive Engineer of U.P.S.E.B. (respondent No. 3) asking him to remit an amount of Rs. 2,85.226.04 to be paid as compensation to the tenureholders of Plot Nos. 351, 358/2. 360/4 and 361/3 of Village Gailana at the rate of Rs. 115 per sq. yard in accordance with the judgment and award dated 31.3.1990 of the IXth Additional District Judge. Agra. This was followed by another letter dated 31.12.1990 by the S.L.A.O. wherein he directed the Executive Engineer to remit the aforesaid amount for payment to the tenure-holders, it was further mentioned in the letter that in case the amount was not sent, the interest will go on mounting, which the department will have to bear. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Mahesh Chandra Gupta and R. K. Agrawal gave an application before the Additional Collector/S.L.A.O. Agra on 30.4.1993 praying that the compensation amount with regard to the four plots be redetermined in accordance with the award of the Court. As the amount was not paid, the present petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petitioner has been contested on behalf of the respondent No. 3, namely, Executive Engineer U.P.S.E.B, who has filed a counter-affidavit and the main plea taken therein that the petitioners had obtained the deed of conveyance in their favour long after the Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act had been issued and the award of S.L.A.O, had been made and, therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) The first question which requires consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to claim redetermination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. The facts mentioned above would show that Notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were published in the Gazette on 17.4.1982 and the possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 21.7.1982 as the provisions of Section 17 (1) and (4) had been invoked. The award of the S.L.A.O, was given on 24.6.1986 and it was thereafter that Ram Singh who was one of the original tenureholder of the plots executed a sale deed in favour of three persons, namely, Gopal Singh, Sobaran Singh and Mahesh Kumar son of Nathhu, in the sale deed, the fact about issuing of Notifications under Sections' 4 (1) and 6 of the Act and taking of possession of the land has been mentioned. Section 16 provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. However, in case of urgency where Government has taken recourse to Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act, the Collector may take possession of the land even though no award has been made, it has been held in S. P. Jain v. State of U. P., AIR 1993 SC 2517, that when Section 17 (I) is applied by reason of urgency, the Government takes possession of land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereafter, the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government- Therefore, the plots in dispute vested with the Government on 21.7.1982 free from all encumbrances when the possession of the same was taken over.