PARVEEN MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the order, dated 19.09.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, declining to answer a reference forwarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, returning the reference to the Collector, is a nullity as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), does not prohibit a person, who has not raised an objection before the Collector, from filing a petition under Section 30 of the Act. A question of title may be raised by filing an application under Section 30 of the Act before or after the award. Reliance for this argument is placed upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. G.H. Grant v. the State of Bihar, 1966 AIR(SC) 237 and Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2003 3 SCC 128. It is further submitted that the reference court committed an error in returning the reference by holding that as the petitioner did not raise any objection before the Collector, he has no right to file a reference under Section 30 of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the petitioner did not raise any objection before the Collector, the reference court rightly returned the reference. It is further submitted that as the petitioner did not appear before the Collector to raise a plea that he has a right in the acquired land, the Collector had no jurisdiction to make a reference to the Additional District Judge.