DEWAS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern disposal of W.P. No. 974/2001, Dewas Development Authority v. State of M.P. and two others. But for the sake of reference, the facts of W.P. No. 975/2001 are mentioned hereinbelow. Petitioner has filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the modified award Annexure P/6 dated 30 -8 -2000 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dewas modifying the original award dated 4 -8 -1990 on the application preferred by Respondent No. 3 under Sections 23(l)(a) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as "the Act").

(2.) PETITIONER is the Development Authority established under the provisions of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam and known as Dewas Development Authority (hereinafter called as "Authority"). The Authority has prepared a scheme under Section 50 of M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam and accordingly the acquisition of the land was made within the city of Dewas. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 12 -7 -1988 and thereafter the final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5 -8 -1988. On completion of the acquisition proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer, Dewas has passed the award on 4 -8 -1990 determining the market value, interest and solatium as specified under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Surprisingly after about ten years of passing of the award an application under Section 23(1)(a) was moved by Respondent No. 3 on 24 -5 -2000 for correction in the award dated 4 -8 -1990 which was allowed by the order impugned Annexure P/6 dated 30 -8 -2000, wherein for payment of certain amount of the solatium as well as the amount of interest has been directed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the award is passed, the compensation has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 23 then as per Section 11 of the Act it becomes absolute and the Land Acquisition Officer shall become functus officio, for the award already passed by him. It is said that recourse under Section 23(l)(a) and Section 23(2) of the Act is not available to Respondent No. 3 and the Land Acquisition Officer is having no authority to entertain such application to pass the modified award.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed his separate return, raising the preliminary objection, of not availing the remedy of appeal, as per Section 54 of the Act, by challenging the modified award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is said that this petition is not entertainable, because the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy available to them. Accordingly it is urged that the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. On merits also Respondent No. 3 has said that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12 -7 -1988, thereafter the final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5 -8 -1988 and the possession was taken over on 20 -4 -1990. The original award was passed on 4 -8 -1990 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner has made the payment of compensation on various dates, details thereof is available from the calculation of the modified impugned award. However, the final payment of compensation has been made to the petitioner on 10 -5 -1995. It is urged by him that the application under Section 23(l)(a) and 23(2) of the Act was submitted for correction of the award dated 4 -8 -1990 because the amount of the solatium and interest, which is the statutory obligation under Sections 23(l)(a) and 23(2) of the Act was not duly paid to him on the amount of compensation determined for the well, house, other land and trees. It is further stated in the application that the amount of the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 is payable as per Section 23(l)(a), and Section 34 of the Act which was not paid properly, therefore, the application submitted by him has rightly been entertained by the Land Acquisition Officer and modified award has rightly been passed as per Annexure P/6 dated 30 -8 -2000. In view of the aforesaid submissions it is urged that the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer modifying the earlier award dated 4 -8 -1990 is in conformity to the provisions of law, therefore, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible.