MAHARAJA HARINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against the order of the Collector declining to make a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) LAND of the aggregate area of 15 acres, 1 Kanal and 9 Marias in village balabgarh of Gurgaon district was acquired for the public purpose of setting up a steel fabricating industry. There were various claimants for compensation of this land and by the award of the Collector dated the 14th June, 1961, overall compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,300/- per acre was determined. The total compensation was computed at the figure of Rs. 50,098. 13 np. and after adding 15 per cent compulsory charges on the cost of land and interest, the aggregate award amounted to Rs. 59,292. 28 np. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the 75 claimants that the amount awarded in compensation was inadequate and that apportionment should be made amongst them. Under Subsection (1) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who have challenged the order of Mis Collector in this petition for revision, that the Collector was bound to make reference for apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants and for enhancement of the award. There is, in my opinion, force in this submission. The land was taken as one parcel and at no stage has It been determined what separate interest in the (and each claimant had. In the circumstances, there must be a proper apportionment of the compensation and till that is done, it cannot be determined what portion of land eacrt claimant is entitled to. The Civil Court is empowered to g0 into this matter of apportionment of compensation under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and there seems to be no valid prima facie reason for the Collector to have declined to make a reference. A person interested has been stated in Clause (b) of Section 3 of the land Acquisition Act to include, "all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition under this Act", and it would be noted that any person interested has a right to ash for a reference from the collector for determination of the dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Collector: That the 75 petitioners are persons interested admits of no doubt and this position has not been controverted by the learned Additional advocate General, who opposes the rule. All that has been contended for on behalf of the State is that the petitioners should have made separate applications. As already indicated, the petitioners desire the Civil Court to apportion their shares and till this is done it is not possible for them to submit the applications as required by the impugned order of the Collector.