CHAMBI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by Smt. Chambi, a widow, seeking mandamus against the Collector, Land Acquisition respondent No. 2 requiring to him to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the District Judge, Ropar.

(2.) The petitioner averred that vide notification dated 26th December, 1969 published in the Government Gazette on January 15, 1970, the Punjab Government exhibited its intention to acquire a parcel of land in the area of village Mohali to set up an industrial and residential Urban Estate. Subsequently, vide notification dated March 2, 1970, issued under section 6 of the aforesaid Act, the Government acquired 7.25 acres of land to the petitioner, the said land was Chahi but was treated by the Land Acquisition Collector as barani, as was evident from the award which he finally passed on August 1, 1970 (Award No. 152 for the year 1970-71). According to the petitioner, she did not receive any notice under section 9 of the aforesaid Act or even one under Section 12(2) of the said Act making her cognizant that proceedings to acquire her land had been undertaken. On coming to know that her land had been acquired, she on February 26, 1976 vide copy of application, Annexure P-1 required the Land Acquisition Collector to forward her case to the District Judge, Ropar, as the compensation awarded to her was inadequate. The Land Acquisition Collector replied to her that since she had received the payment of compensation on April 2, 1969, without protest, section 31(2) of the aforesaid Act was a bar for her to seek enhancement. The reply is Annexure P.2 to the petition.

(3.) In reply, the Land Acquisition Collector has countered that after the issuance of notification dated 26.12.1969 under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, acquisition proceedings had culminated in Award No. 122 of the year 1968-69. Payment of compensation had been made to the petitioner under that award and she had received it without protects. It was further countered that the said award was challenged by some interested persons in this Court and the same got quashed vide Civil Writ No. 386 of 1969. Necessarily, a fresh award had to be framed and consequently one was prepared on August 1, 1970, the award which is now operative. It has also been asserted that notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the petitioner requiring her to put in her claim before the Land Acquisition Collector on July 27, 1980, but she failed to put in appearance. With regard to notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, it was asserted that serving on her such a notice was not necessary as she had already received her compensation vide award No. 122 of the year 1968-69 and in this manner it was pleaded that her application was not required to be entertained under section 31(2).