SUGANDHI Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari the proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No. 13-A/82 of 1961-62 before the Collector and Additional Collector of Raipur (respondents 1 and 2) culminating in the Collector's award dated 11 May 1963 whereby compensation was determined under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act for a part of the acquired land, namely, 11986 sq. ft., out of plot No. 2/11 of Mandahapara in Raipur city.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated. Chunnilal, father of Smt. Radhabai (respondent 4), was a paternal uncle of Dammoolal (petitioner 1, who being now dead is represented by his numerous legal representatives). THE Nazul lease of plot No. 2 / 11 stands in the name of "Chunnilal Dammoolal". THE other like lease of plot No. 2/24 is in the name of Dammoolal. THEre are on these plots two houses bearing municipal Nos. 396 and 397. Chunnilal died on 28 August 1947. THEreafter, Smt. Radhabai has been living in the house standing on plot No. 2/11 from about the year 1952. She had filed Civil Suit No. 8-A of 1955 against Dammoolal (her first cousin), petitioner 2 (her deceased sister's son) and Smt. Kasturibai (her only surviving sister) claiming a declaration that, as heirs of their father Chunnilal, she and her sister Smt. Kasturibai took his estate including the plots Nos. 2/11 and 2/24 and the houses standing thereon. THE Additional District Judge, Raipur, dismissed that suit on 19 November 1959 on the ground that Dammoolal had taken the property by survivorship and, in the appeal filed by Smt. Radhabai, this Court affirmed that decision on 8 February 1963.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings and the award therein made mainly on the ground that though, as shown, the petitioner 1 is the owner in possession of the land and the petitioner 2 is an occupier thereof, being in possession of a part of one of the buildings for the office of "Paras Film Exchange", no notice was served on any of them and thus the mandatory requirements of sections 9 (3) and 12 (2) of the Act were disregarded. According to them, the fact that the petitioner 1 was interested in the land as the owner thereof was clear from the maintenance khasra and communication of the Nazul Officer dated 29 November 1961, which were on the record of the proceedings, and that fact was mentioned also in the order-sheets of the proceedings on 22 November 1961 and 29 November 1961. Being thus fully aware of the interest of the petitioner 1 in the land, the respondents 1 and 2 did not issue to them, wilfully and from wrong motives, the statutory notices and thus acted with supine indifference or mala fide intendments. That being so, all subsequent proceedings were ultra vires and the award made therein is inoperative in law in affecting the rights of the petitioners.