STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from proceedings for acquisition of land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894. The dispute in the present case relates to plot No. 42 of village Rouza, Pargana and Tahsil Fatehpur district Barabanki.

(2.) On 3-10-1972 the State Government issued notification under Sec. 4 of the above Act. This notification contained several plots which were sought to be acquired. Out of these plots there was plot No. 42 approximate area of which was indicated as 7 biswas and 15 biswansis. The notification also mentioned that the case being one of urgency the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act had been applied to the acquisition in question. Thereafter on 1-11-1972 notification was issued by the State Government under Sec. 6 of the Act. The plots mentioned in the notification under Sec. 4 were repeated in this notification. Plot No. 42 was also repeated with the -same area. The only modification was that while in notification under Sec. 4 the area of 7 biswas and 15 biswansis had "been indicated to be the approximate area the notification under Sec. 6-did not contain any word to indicate that the area was approximate. In the notification under Sec. 4 the Hindi word 'Lagbhag had been used before the word 'Chhetraphal. 'Lagbhag means approximate and 'Chhetraphal means area. Under the notification under Sec. 6 the Collector was authorised to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Sec. 9. In the usual course the Collector took possession of the land which was proposed to be acquired. Thereafter the Collector made an award in respect of the compensation to be awarded to the claimants in lieu of the land acquired. The amount of compensation determined in favour of the respondent was Rs. 640.01. The respondent was dissatisfied with the award tS-d he accordingly moved an application before the Collector for making reference to the District Judge under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this reference the contention of the respondent was that the actual area of the land which had been taken possession of was 16 biswas and 6 biswansis and not 7 biswas and 15 biswansis as mentioned in the notification and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation in respect of the former area instead of the latter area. His case was that the Collector had awarded compensation to him in respect of the latter area which was less than the area actually taken possession of. 'The averments with regard to the area had been made in sub-para (a) of para 1 of the application under Sec. 18 of the Act. To this application written statement was filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh before the learned District Judge, Barabanki. The averments made in sub-para (a) of para 1 of the application under Sec. 18 were simply denied. No case in addition to denial was set up on behalf -of the State. Under additional pleas it was stated that the amount claimed by the respondent was exorbitant and that he was not entitled to the same. The claim was also alleged to be barred by limitation. It was also stated that the amount awarded by the Compensation Officer was just having regard to the value of the property acquired. A perusal of this written statement would indicate that on behalf of the State it was not specifically stated that the Collector had taken possession over an area which was in excess of the area notified under Sec. 6 and, therefore, the action of the Collector was illegal and the only remedy available to the respondent was to file suit in the ordinary course instead of claiming compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The State also did not say that its possession over any portion of the land was illegal and that it was prepared to vacate the same.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned District Judge framed the following issues:-