SUGANDHI WIDOW OF DAMMULAL Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises on the following facts. In Revenue Case No. 13-A/82 of 1961-62 certain area out of plot No. 2/11 of Madhopara. Raipur was acquired for the purposes of the Telegraph department under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 13th May, 1963 an award of rs. 55,135. 60 P. as compensation was published by the Additional Collector, raipur and on 12th June, 1963, the entire amount was paid to one Birdhichand jain who received the same on behalf of his wife Smt. Radhabai who claimed to be the sole owner of the land. One Dammulal, who also claimed exclusive ownership of the acquired area, applied to the Collector on 26th July, 1963 that although he alone was entitled to the land, there was wilful and mala fide omission on the part of the authorities to give him notices of the acquisition proceedings under Sections 9 (3) and 12 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings were null and void. Dammulal also filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the high Court, being M. P. No. 254 of 1963, praying that the entire acquisition proceedings be quashed. This petition was dismissed on 22nd December, 1965 mainly on the ground that the allegation of wilful omission to issue notices could more properly be investigated in a civil suit. Without prejudice to his right to challenge the validity of the entire acquisition proceedings, Dammulal had also applied on 7th November, 1963 to the Collector, Raipur for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In this application he claimed to be the sole owner of the acquired land and, therefore, alone entitled to the whole of the compensation; further, he disputed the quantum of compensation and claimed that instead of Rs. 55,135-60 P. , the proper compensation of the land should be fixed at Rs. 1,65,406-80 P. This application under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed by the Additional Collector (also called land Acquisition Officer) on 30th March 1966 on the sole ground that the appropriate remedy for the applicant was to file a suit as pointed out by the High court in M. P. No. 254 of 1963. Dammulal died in the meantime and the petitioners, who are his heirs and legal representatives, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for having the order rejecting the application under Section 18 quashed by this Court.

(2.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Additional collector, who dismissed the application under Section 18 was not appointed by the State Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Land acquisition Act and, therefore, he could not act as a Collector and dismiss the application. The jurisdiction to act under Section 18 is conferred on the Collector which expression is defined by Section 2 (d) to mean the Collector of a district and to include "a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector". The question for consideration is whether the Additional Collector is an officer specially appointed under Section 2 (d) to perform the functions of a Collector. In the Mahakoshal region of the State, under the revenue laws previously in force, the Revenue officers new styled as Collectors and Additional Collectors were known as Deputy commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioners. By Revenue Department notification No. 5103-4622-XII of 22nd September, 1950, the Government of the then State of Madhya Pradesh appointed all the Additional Deputy Commissioners to perform the functions of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. After the re-organisation and formation of the new State in 1956, uniformity in nomenclature of revenue officers was achieved by Para 4-A of the Madhya Pradesh adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, (as amended in 1957) made under Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 which reads as under:

(3.) THEN it is contended that the award in the instant case was made by the collector and, therefore, the application for reference under Section 18 should have also been decided by him and not by the Additional Collector. This contention is factually wrong. On 22nd April, 1963, the Additional Collector made the award and as the compensation fixed exceeded Rs. 10,000/-, he submitted it to the collector for approval. This procedure was required by the Executive Instruction no. 80, which occurs at page 60 of the Land Acquisition Manual. The award was approved by the Collector on 11th May 1963. After the file was received back by the Additional Collector, he declared the award on 13th May, 1963 and directed issue of notices. Simply because the award after it was made by the Additional collector, was sent to the Collector for obtaining his approval in pursuance of the government instructions, it cannot be said that the award was made by the collector. Having regard to Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act it must be held on the facts of this case that the award though approved by Collector was made by the Additional Collector who decided the application under Section 18 of the Act.