HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated May 13, 1998, vide which Land Acquisition Collector, S.Y.L.Canal Project, Patiala, had filed his application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that the application was not complete.

(2.) Facts in this case are not in dispute. Petitioner has 1/8th share out of land measuring 16 Bighas, which was subject matter of acquisition by respondents. As per version of petitioner, since compensation awarded to him was not sufficient, he moved an application to the Collector, respondent No.2, for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired with a prayer that application be referred to the competent Court for determination.

(3.) It is apparent from reading of paper book that application of the petitioner was received by the Collector. It was not complete. Collector even issued a notice to him to complete the same. When he failed to respond, application was filed. Counsel appearing for petitioner has stated that petitioner never received notice, otherwise, he would have appeared before the Collector and completed his application. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner now undertakes to appear before the Collector on any given date to complete deficiency in his application. As per law laid down by this Court in Chander Datt Sharma and Ors. v/s. The State of Haryana and Anr.,', (1991) 100 P.L.R. 5 it has been held by this Court that once an application has been filed by a iand owner under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Collector, then it is the duty of the Collector to refer it to the competent court for its adjudication. To the same effect is the ratio of judgment in Jagdish Chander v/s. The District Revenue Officer -cum Land Acquisition Collector, Public Works (Irrigation) Fetehabad, (2001)129 P.L.R. 805.