UNION OF INDIA Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court arising out of a suit for possession of land measuring 7 bighas 14 biswas filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit. However, in appeal the decree for possession of the land was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff has alleged that he is owner of the land measuring 7 bighas 14 biswas comprising in khasra No. 4723/2444, 4721/2627 and 4722/2443. Vide notification dated 26-8-1966, the Government of India published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act),intending to acquire 120.5375 acres of land for a public purpose namely for the purpose of Government of India. Declaration was also made that the action would be taken under Section 17 of the Act on the ground of urgency and the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. On 30-8-1966 the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. On 2-11-1966 possession of the land was taken. The award was announced on 7-8-1967. The plaintiff filed suit for possession on 3-10-1969 whereas a compensation of 19841.56 paise was paid to the plaintiff on 25-6-1970 in pursuance of the supplementary award statement.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit for possession on the ground that in the above notification and Award instead of actual khasra numbers in existence as per jamabandi, some provisionally adopted khasra numbers by the Consolidation Authorities, have been given. The consolidation notification in the village has been suspended with the result that khasra numbers for which the notification was issued no longer exist. The plaintiff claimed that consequent to the notification under Section 6 of the Act the Central Government took possession of the land illegally taking into account the provisional numbers. Challenge of the plaintiff to the notification of the award was that the plaintiff has not been served with any notice to file his objections under Section 9 of the Act. It was submitted that an application was made on 7-11-1967 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further alleged that the award as well as the statement of award do not contain any reference to the claim of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that under the consolidation scheme which had been dropped, the plaintiff was to get some other land in lieu of the land mentioned above but possession thereof was never transferred. Therefore, the plaintiff continues to be owner of the land mentioned above and the same could never be acquired and possession could not be taken without valid notification. For ready reference para No. 5 of the plaint reads as under : "5. That the notification aforementioned under Sections 4 and 6 as well as the award dated 7-8-1967 are illegal and void for the under-mentioned reasons : (a) That plaintiff has not been served with any notice to file his objections under Section 9 but coming to know of the acquisition the plaintiff made an application on 7-11-1967 under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Collector. This application was made by the applicant without prejudice to his rights. That in spite of this application no reference was made to the Civil Court. (b) The award as well as the statement of award does not contain any reference to the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the award and the award statement do not in any way give right to the plaintiff and also do not bind him. (c) Under the consolidation scheme which has been dropped, the plaintiff was to get some other land in lieu of the land mentioned above as the notification of consolidation had been dropped and possession thereof was never transferred inter-se the land owners. The plaintiff continues to be the owner of the land mentioned above and the same could never be acquired or taken possession of without a valid notification under Sections 4 and 6 and then a notice to the plaintiff and consequent award. In the instant case all the four aforementioned items were lacking. The taking of possession is thus illegal and void.