KAILASH DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the only question for decision is whether the petitioner landowners have lost the right to have their case referred to a Civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), because of their having accepted a voucher for the compensation amount, without registering their protest, when they had already made an application earlier for a reference under that section.

(2.) THE land belonging to the petitioners and described in paragraph 1 of the writ petition was acquired by the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, through the Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 2, for the public purpose of development of Sector No. 17 of Faridabad town in District Gurgaon. The Collector had given his award on 20th of January, 1968. The petitioners had made an application, dated 27th of February 1968 (copy Annexure 'a' to the writ petition) well within time, alleging that the award was not acceptable to them, that they felt aggrieved by the rate and quantum of compensation determined by respondent No. 2, and that their case may, therefore, be referred to a Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation amount. No action was taken on this application for about a year, but a voucher for the compensation amount already determined for the land was sent by post to the petitioners and was received by them on 14th of February 1969. No fresh protest was, however, registered at the time of acceptance of this compensation voucher. The petitioners then received an intimation on 11th of May 1970 (copy Annexure 'b' to the petition) that their application, dated 27th of February 1968, under Section 18 of the Act had been filed on the ground that the compensation amount had been received by them without protest.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by Shri G. S. Chawla, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, that the proper remedy to be followed by the petitioners was to file a revision petition under Section 18 (3) of the Act, as amended in 1954 and that a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not competent. But the petitioners have invoked this Court's power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution as well and the writ petition can be treated as an application for revision of the impugned order. It was so held in Smt. Kako Bai v. Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar, AIR 1956 Punj 231.