STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURNAM KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the present case are that in the year 1955 acquisition was made by the State under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in regard to a large chunk of land situate in village Lehal, Tehsil and District Patiala, for setting up the Teachers Training Institute. The claimants were paid their compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, which was accepted under protest and thereafter, the claimants sought references under section 18 of the Act. The references came before the district Court and the compensation was enhanced. On the compensation awarded by the District Court the claimants were satisfied as they did not come to this Court in appeal for claiming further enhancement. After the compensation was paid by the Collector, the State took over the possession of the land in dispute and constructed the institute. Long thereafter on 27-2-1969, Smt. Gurnam Kaur, one of the landowners whose 27 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land was acquired under the aforesaid proceedings and who had also got the enhancement made through the District Court, filed a civil suit to challenge the proceedings taken by the Collector under section 7 onwards of the Act on the ground that the officer, who conducted those proceedings, had not been empowered to do the functions of the Collector under those provisions because no such powers were conferred on him under section 3(c) of the Act. On this basis, it was sought to be argued that the entire proceedings regarding issue of notice under section 9; the award of compensation under section 11; the deposit of compensation by him under section 12 and the taking of possession under section 16 of the Act, are wholly null and void and should be set aside. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession of 27 Bighas and 7 Biswas of land which decree was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. This is a second appeal by the State of Punjab.

(2.) Shri D.S. Brar, appearing for the State, has raised a point of importance to the effect that once the plaintiffs got the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it should have been deemed that they had waived their right to challenge that matter when they sought reference under section 18 of the Act, which reference was allowed by the District Court. It is further argued that the acquisition proceedings had concluded beyond three years prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, there was no limitation available to the plaintiffs to come to the Court. Both these points were put to the counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. In reply to the first point, he has placed reliance on Smt. Chan Kaur v. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi and others,1965 PunLR 616, a Single Bench decision wherein it was held that if the proceedings taken under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act are void, the filing of reference application under section 18 of the Act and the order of enhancement of compensation, would not stand in the way of the claimant to challenge the acquisition proceedings. As regards the point of limitation, since the orders passed by the officer under sections 7 to 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, were not passed by a person who was duly authorised to act as a Collector under section 3(c) of the Act, they should be considered to be void and once the orders are void, no limitation would be applicable in the case.

(3.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that both the points raised on behalf of the State deserve to prevail.