RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner vide his petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has sought a direction to be issued to the Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala, to re-determine the compensation granted to the petitioner in accordance with law or refer the matter to the District Judge. Briefly put land of the petitioner was acquired vide notification dated 23rd June, 1976 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Various claimants preferred a reference under section 18 of the Act and the learned Additional District Judge in these cases awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 27,300.00 per acre which on further appeal before the High Court was enhanced to Rs. 31,000.00 per acre. Admittedly the petitioner did not prefer reference under section 18 of the Act and now sought compensation as awarded to his co-claimants in terms of section 28-A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Collector is neither re-determining the compensation nor is referring the matter to the District Judge. On receipt of the application filed by the claimants for awarding of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 31,000.00 per acre, notice was issued to the State, who vide written statement denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable.

(2.) Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 13th Feb., 1991 has partly agreed to the contention of the petitioner that he is also entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the Court but construed the expression "Court" as the principle civil Court of original jurisdiction and this way confined the compensation to a sum of Rs. 27,300.00 per acre as awarded by Additional District Judge.

(3.) Petitioner has assailed this conclusion of the Land Acquisition Collector on the ground that order of the Additional District Judge was modified by the High Court thereby enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs. 31,000.00 per acre. This way the order of Additional District Judge merged in the order of the High Court dated 23rd July, 1986. Since appeal is a continuation of an original suit, petitioner now is entitled to compensation as awarded by the High Court. In support of his contention, counsel referred to the judgment reported as Kartara and another Vs. The State of Punjab, 1988 (2) Rev. LR 290. Counsel further submitted that in any case the land Acquisition Collector had no jurisdiction to decline the reference and was duty bound to send the same to the Court of District Judge for adjudication in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The above cited judgment squarely covers the point in controversy. The petitioner is entitled to file an application to the Collector within three months from the date of the judgment which admittedly has been complied with. The Collector is to re determine the compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by this Court. Land Acquisition Collector has taken a narrow view of the expression "Court" and confined the same to the Court of Additional District Judge/District Judge. Even if there was no merit in the objection so raised yet the Collector had no choice but to send the papers to the Court of District Judge who alone had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. I accordingly accept this revision petition and remand the case to the Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law who will decide the same within two months. In case the Collector entertains any doubt with regard to awarding of compensation that is at the rate awarded by this Court vide judgment dated 23rd July, 1986, he would made the reference to the Additional District Judge without any unjust delay. Petition allowed.