SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME vital facets pertaining to the filing of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and a divergence of judicial opinion thereon within this Court (albeit at the motion stage) has necessitated the admission of this set of three civil writ petitions to a Full Bench. Pointedly at issue are the conflicting observations of the Division Benches in Chanan Singh v. Union of India (C. W. P. 4229/1981 decided on 23rd Nov. , 1981) and Hakam Singh v. Union of India, C. W. P. 2378/ 1981 decided on 9th Oct. , 1981.

(2.) THE factual matrix giving rise to the issues may be briefly from Sher Singh v. Union of India, C. W. p. 5628 of 1981. The petitioner owned agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Mehna Patti district Bhatinda jointly with his brother Bhag Singh which was acquired for the public purpose of establishing a military cantonment by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated the 9th Oct. , 1974. In pursuance of the acquisition proceedings, the Collector announced his award on the 11th of June, 1975 at Bhatinda. It is averred that on the 19th of July, 1975, the petitioner specially filed a reference under Section 18, Annexure P-1, with the Collector at Bhatinda. He along with his brother Bhag Singh preferred other similar references also which were decided on the 29th Sept. , 1979 and they duly received compensation therefor. Thereafter he made enquiries about the reference, Annexure P-1, from the office of the Collector but was told that the same had been misplaced and despite repeated enquiries thereafter the aforesaid usual reply was given to him. Ultimately in the last week of November. 1981 he learnt that the aforesaid reference, Annexure P-1, had not been forwarded to the District Judge, Bhatinda, and thus the respondent-Collector had failed to perform the statutory duty imposed upon him in this regard.

(3.) IN the return on behalf of the respondent, it is admitted that land measuring 11 Bighas 19 Biswas was acquired for the Bhatinda Cantonment, but it is averred that the petitioner was not a co-owner in Khasra No. 2734/1 measuring 4 Bighas. it is then the case that the petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation due to him without protest. Particularly with regard to Annexure P-1, it is the respondent's stand that no such reference was at all received in his office and therefore no question of tracing or forwarding the same to the District Judge arises. The legal stance taken on behalf of the petitioner is expressly controverted.