AVTAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of Avtar Singh was acquired by the State of Punjab for the construction of houses for landless labourers. Thereafter, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Avtar Singh was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector and he filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) and ultimately, the district Court enhanced the compensation. In the meantime, Avtar Singh filed a civil suit to challenge the acquisition as also the award of the Collector, on the ground that no notice was issued to him under S. 4 of the Act and the notice issued under S. 9(3) of the Act was short of 15 days and as such the award of the Collector was illegal and void. The suit was opposed by the State and it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff filed a claim before the Land Acquisition Collector in pursuance to notice under S. 9(3) of the Act, and compensation was allowed thereafter. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had sought a reference under S. 18 of the Act and under these circumstances, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector could not be held to be null and void. The trial Court as also the first appellate Court found no merit in the suit and dismissed the same. The plaintiff came to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) At the motion hearing it was urged on the basis of two single Bench decisions in Velagapudi Kanaka Durga v. v. District Collector, AIR 1971 Andh Pra 310 and Mani Ram v. The State of Punjab, (1974) 76 Pun LR 735 : (AIR 1975 Punj 135), that the provisions of S. 9(3) of the Act were mandatory and if fifteen days' notice is not served on a landowner, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be sustained. In view of the importance of the matter, the case was ordered to be decided by a large Bench and that is how it has been placed before us for final disposal.

(3.) Before us, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that assuming S. 9(3) of the Act to be mandatory, as sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, yet no relied can be granted to the plaintiff in this suit because in spite of a short notice under S. 9(3) of the Act, he filed his claim which was considered by the Land Acquisition Collector on merits before the award was given by him and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for reference which too has been allowed by the district Court and the plaintiff is satisfied by the enhancement as he did not file any further appeal in this Court. On these facts, it is urged that the plaintiff would be estopped from challenging the award of the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that 15 days' notice was not given to him for filing his claim. In support of the argument, reliance has been placed on Mohammad Habibullah Sahib v. Special Deputy collector, AIR 1967 Mad 118; Brahm Sarup v. State of Haryana, 1974 Pun LJ 115 : (AIR 1975 Punj 26) and Bishna v. State of Punjab, 1980 Pun LJ 510.