HARIKRISHNA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has prayed for the relief for payment of compensation along with interest of land bearing Khasra No. 30/5 situate at Village Aharkheda Tahsil, Bawai District Hoshangabad under Tawa Project which was acquired by respondents. It is averred in the petition that notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11.3.1988, declaration under section 6 was published on 3.6.1988 in M.P. Rajpatra. Land Acquisition Case 9-A/1982 was registered and award Annexure B was passed. Petitioner prayed that respondents be directed to pay the amount of compensation as per award Annexure B along with interest at the rate of 30%. Petitioner was not informed of passing of the award, as such he could not make an application for seeking reference to the Civil Court. It was incumbent upon the Collector to have passed the award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration otherwise the proceedings stand lapsed. Work of canal has already been started. It is not possible to restore the possession of the land, hence, respondents were . bound to pay the compensation of the land acquired along with 15% solatium and interest.

(2.) A return has been filed by respondents contending that Collector has not approved the award as the proposed award was in his opinion not based on the correct market value of lands. The Collector remanded the case for determining the correct average value of lands in the village. The matter, on being remitted, was reconsidered on the basis of mutual compromise. Order sheets R-1 in that regard are collectively filed. Copy of the proposed award is Annexure R-II. Collector has not signed the proposed award and the same is of no legal value. R-III rates were approved by the Collector which were arrived at after compromise between the parties which was agreed by the claimants of the village. Petitioner was informed as per letter R-IV dated 8.2.1991 to collect the compensation. Petitioner as per letter R/V dated 13.6.1991 had refused to take the compensation approved by the Collector. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot base his claim on award which was not approved. It appears that after the matter was remitted, a report R/III was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer. R/III nowhere indicates that petitioner had agreed for taking the compensation mentioned in R/III before the Land Acquisition Officer. Letter R/IV dated 8.2.1991 of Land Acquisition Officer indicates that there was proposal to take the land by compromise. However, it appears that instead of consenting to the said rates offered, petitioner submitted objections R/V dated 13.6.1991 and prayed for disbursement of compensation through award. Shri K.N. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that this is a case where possession has been taken on 15.5.1984 but compensation has not been paid so far. Respondents have no right to compel the petitioner to accept the compromise. Petitioner had expressed the intention to go by the award thus it was incumbent upon the respondents to have passed an award which has not been passed, hence, respondents be directed to make payment of compensation. His alternative submission is also that acquisition stands lapsed as award has not been passed within two years.

(3.) RESULTANTLY , writ petition is allowed in part. Land Acquisition Officer is directed to determine the compensation within four months from today and make the payment of admissible amount along with interest. No order as to costs.