CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. RAMAIYA CHHOKODI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will also govern disposal of Misc. Pet. No. 1889 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Baijnath and Anr., Misc. Pet. No. 1873 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Bharat Prasad and Ors., Misc. Pet. No. 1878 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Rameshraya and Ors., Misc. Petition No. 1894 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors., Misc. Pet. No. 1875 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Roshandhar and Ors., Misc. Petition No. 1888 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Kalloo, Misc. Pet. No. 1877 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Ramavatar and Anr., Misc. Petition No. 1892 of 1995, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Raijbhan and Anr., Misc. Petition No. 1874 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Vanspati and Ors., Misc. Pet. No. 1876 of 1993, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Ors., Misc. Petition No. 1895 of 1992, Central Rly., Bombay and anoother v. Devnath and Anr. Misc. Petition No. 1893 of 1992, Central Rly., Bombay and Anr. v. Koshal Prasad and Anr., Misc. Pet. No. 1897 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Ramjiyawan and Ors., Misc. Pet. No. 1891/92, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Vanspati and Anr., Misc. Pet. No. 1890 of 1992, Central Railway, Bombay and Anr. v. Sundershan and Ors., which raise common questions of law and facts and for that reason have been heard together.

(2.) THE land of the respondents was acquired at the instance of the petitioners for completing Satna -Rewa Rail Link Project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were accordingly issued and after completing formalities, the possession of the land taken. The land of the respondents has been acquired for establishing Lilua Railway Station. The respondent Land Acquisiton Officer determined the compensation of the said land and passed award dated 25 -5 -1987. According to the respondent Land Acquisition Officer, the compensation for irrigated land would be Rs. 72,405/ - per hectare, whereas it would be Rs. 60,337/ - for unirrigated land. He also determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 48,270/ - per hectare for fallow land. The amount so determined was deposited by the petitioners and has been paid to the respondents. The respondents, however, were not satisfied with the aforesaid award and claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was made and has been decided by ShriR. P. Tihaiya, III Additional District Judge, Rewa. According to the learned Judge, proper compensation for the acquired land should be Rs. 1.50 lakhs per hectare and gave the award dated 19th February, 1992, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is common ground that the said award is appealable under Section 54 of the Act, but the appeal has not been filed.

(3.) THE important question requiring consideration of this case, as contained in the petitions, is 'whether the Additional District Judge was legally bound to serve notice to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act and grant them an opportunity to contest the claim?' Section 20 of the Act reads as under : -