PHONGSEH MISAO Vs. COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Reference made by the Collector, Manipur North District, Karong, to the District Judge, Manipur under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) in L. A. Case No. 1 of 1972 and for a writ of the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 59,616/- awarded as compensation by the Collector in respect of the acquired land. The Collector of North District, Manipur, the State of Manipur and the Secretary, Government of Manipur, Development Department have been arrayed as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The relevant facts may be stated, in brief, as below.

(2.) THE village Nungphou is a hill village within the North District, Manipur, and it is one of the villages grouped under the Sadar Circle No. 1 under the provisions of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947. The petitioner is the headman of this village and he has been in exclusive possession of the lands of the village realising house tax from the residents of the village for the purpose of paying the same to the Government.

(3.) ON receipt of the enquiry report from the S. D. O., Mao Sadar Subdivision, as above, the Government of Manipur decided to acquire the land in question and issued a preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide Notification No. 8/25/63-D dated 28th June, 1969 (Annexure A/8), which was duly published. A copy of this Notification was separately sent to the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 issued a Notification No. DC(N) 6/26 dated 2-5-1972 under Section 9 of the Act (Annexure A/10). A copy of this Notification was also separately sent to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Collector on 12-6-1972 to state the nature of his claim and the amount and particulars of his claim. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and lodged an objection as to the area of the land acquired which was notified as measuring 11 acres approximately, but which actually measured 12.99 acres. The acquisition case was registered as L. A. case No. 1 of 1972. Except the petitioner no other person appeared before the Collector to lay any claim to the land or to the compensation in respect of the same. After due enquiry the Collector made an award in favour of the petitioner granting Rs. 59,616/as compensation for 12.99 acres of land, at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The award was made on 29-1-1973. On the same day the respondent No. 1 wrote to the respondent No. 3 to make available the sum of Rupees 59,616/- for payment to the petitioner vide his letter dated 29-1-1973 (Annexure-A/14). In spite of this letter from the respondent No. 1 and also repeated requests from the petitioner the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 avoided payment on this or that plea. At last on 26-3-1975 the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Manipur filed an application, purportedly under Section 30 of the L. A. Act, requesting the Collector to refer the case to the District Judge stating inter alia that the respondent No. 2 was "doubting the title of the petitioner to receive the compensation money" (Annexure A/15). The respondent No. 1 wrote back to the Hill Commissioner, Manipur, expressing his doubt about the applicability of Section 30 of the L. A. Act in the case and suggested that the matter might be reviewed in consultation with the law department; but it appears this request was not heeded to. At last the respondent No. 1 made a reference to the District Judge, purportedly under Section 30 of the L. A. Act, in compliance with the letter of the Revenue Secretary (Annexure A/15). In the letter of reference (Annexure A/18) the Collector stated "it is claimed in the petition (of the Revenue Secretary) that Shri Phongseh Misao (petitioner) is not entitled to receive the compensation" awarded by the Collector in L. A. Case No. 1 of 1972. It is against this reference the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition with the prayers, as mentioned above alleging, inter alia, that the reference made by the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction and that the respondents are bound in law to pay him the compensation awarded by the Collector for the acquired land.